CAR_Public/181010.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, October 10, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 203

                            Headlines

ABILITY RECOVERY: Ct. Denies Leave to Serve Subpoena in Baum Suit
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Savoia Says
AIRCEL LLC: Headrick Class Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
AMERIS BANK: Hanley Files Class Suit in South Carolina
ANNA SUI: Faces Burbon Class Action in New York

APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Ariel Sues over Rental Agreements
ARSTRAT LLC: Alexander Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
B COMMUNICATIONS: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
BDO USA: Faces Kaniki Suit over Sale of Patriot National Shares
BLUE BUS: Alley, et al. Seek Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

BREG INC: Eduardo Cepe Seeks Unpaid Overtime
BULLET PRODUCTION: DeBord Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
BURROW INC: Faces Kiler ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CARLSON WAGONLIT: Sued by Gunderson for Violating Cal. Labor Code
CARMAX AUTO: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Doucette Says

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss West & Hopson Suit Granted
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Bid to Stay Bennett Suit Pending
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Butler Suit in Oklahoma Remains Stayed
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Griggs Suit in Oklahoma Dismissed
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Petition for Rehearing in Donelson Suit Ongoing

CITIGROUP INC: Court Denies Certification in Tomeo TCPA Suit
CLIENT SERVICES: Heaton Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CLIENT SERVICES: Lantry Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
COMMERCIAL INTERIORS: Appeals Order in Salinas Suit to 4th Cir.
CONN APPLIANCES: Underpays Sales Associates, Duran et al. Claim

CORPO MENTE: Jerome Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CREDIT BUREAU: Kang Files FCRA Suit in E.D. California
CYTOSPORT INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Clay Suit Ruling
DIAMOND LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Sandoval Says
DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Decision in Revitch TCPA Suit to 9th Cir.

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Bonner Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
EMERY FEDERAL: Court Grants Final Approval on $9MM Settlement Deal
ENSITE USA: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Doyle Suit Alleges
ETHOS GALLERY: Illegally Appropriates Tips, Hernandez Suit Says
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Montfort Claims

FORD MOTOR: Ct. Won't Certify Class of Female Plant Workers
FRIENDS FIRST: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Berry Suit Alleges
FSC CORPORATION: Bolanos Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
FUSION LOGISTICS: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Ortega Suit Says
GATEWAY HOUSING: Garcia Sues Over Construction Defect

GENERAL MOTORS: Reply Due Oct. 24 in Marro Sup. Ct. Appeal
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Green, et al. Sue over Reinsurance Termination
GOLD'S GYM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Frank and Cowette Allege
GOLDEN FLOWERS: Ulrich Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Class Cert. Denial in Murphy Suit Appealed

GRAY TELEVISION: Holmen Locker Suit Asserts Antitrust Violations
GRAY TELEVISION: Manipulated Prices for TV Commercials, Suit Says
GREEN MOUNTAIN: City Plating Sues Over Unwanted Fax Ads
HALAL OR NOTHING: White Seeks Unpaid Overtime under Labor Code
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Aguilar Suit Moved to C.D. California

HEALTH NET: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Cisneros Says
HIGHLAND CAPITAL: Lanotte Sues over Mismanagement of Trust Fund
HOBBY LOBBY: Court to Narrow Claims in Phillips Suit
INNERWORKINGS INC: Continues to Defend Brown Class Action
JACKS EGGS: Vargas et al. Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA

JBS USA: Court Dismisses Phase I Discrimination Pattern & Practice
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Gets Insurance Kickback from Airfare, Claims Dolan
JOSEPH CORY: 3rd Cir. Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss Lupian
LABORATORY CORP: Haro Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under Labor Code
LAO FENG: Burbon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LUMINANT ENERGY: Doesn't Pay OT to Field Engineers, Baksinksi Says
MARIMEKKO NORTH: Faces Burbon Class Action Under ADA
MATZAL INC: Castro Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
McCARTHY BURGESS : Hamilton Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
MDL 2741: Griffeth, et al. vs Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated

MED FOODS: Cochran Appeals Ruling in Koller Suit to 9th Circuit
MIAN RAUF: Hopkins Suit Brought Before N.Y. Sup. Ct.
MICROCHIP TECH: Maknissian Hits Stock Drop from Microsemi Buyout
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeals Ruling in Brown Suit to 5th Cir.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Stimpson Suit

MIKIMOTO: Violates ADA, Burbon Suit Says
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Court Denies Settlement Approval in Old GM Suit
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Plumbers Sues over 6.25% Drop in Share Price
NURSING CARE: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
NYC MEDICAL: Lawrence Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA & NYLL

OLLIE PETS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OPKO HEALTH: Adsport Hits Share Price Drop in Pump-and-Dump Scheme
OSAKA STEAKHOUSE: Zhang Suit Goes to Southern District of New York
PENHALIGON’S INC: Burbon Suit Asserts ADA Breach
PINDUODUO INC: Hung Sues over 10% Drop in Share Price

PRO-LAB INC: Standish Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Whalen Moves for Class Certification
PROTECT AMERICA: Mey Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
PURPLE INNOVATION: Slade Class Action Asserts ADA Breach
QUATTRO DIRECT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Eastman et al. Allege

RES-CARE PREMIERE: Jones Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ROCKIES REGION: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Dufresne Suit
S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT: Can Compel Arbitration in Hughes FLSA Suit
SAMARITAN DAYTOP: Underpays Housing Specialists, Hewitt Claims
SEARS HOLDINGS: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in Catalfamo ERISA Suit

SELLAS LIFE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Abstral Related Suit
SELLAS LIFE: Paid Galena Stockholders' Suit-Related Obligations
SOUTH CAROLINA: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Mental Health Suit
STEADFAST CONSTRUCTION: Estudillo Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
STERN & STERN: Goodman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

TAIYO INTERNATIONAL: Jin Sues Over Filing of Fraudulent Tax Forms
TEUSCHER PROMENADE: Faces Burbon ADA Suit in New York
UNITED COLLECTION: Stern Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
UNITED STATES: Ct. Vacates Lift of Prelim Injunction in Hamama Suit
UNITED STATES: JP's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission

UNITED STATES: Sued over Separation of Asylum Seekers' Families
VOX MEDIA: Misclassifies Content Contributors, Tamryn Spruill Says
WEST IRIS: Denied Breaks and Overtime Pay, Clark Suit Says
WYNDHAM REWARDS: Williams Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
ZOGSPORTS: Ernst et al., Seek Minimum Wages under FLSA


                            *********

ABILITY RECOVERY: Ct. Denies Leave to Serve Subpoena in Baum Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Eastern District of New York
issued a Memorandum and Opinion denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to Serve a Subpoena Seeking Documents in the case captioned
JOSEPH BAUM, Plaintiff, v. ABILITY RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant. No. 17-CV-5799 (ARR) (JO). (E.D.N.Y.).

Baum asks for leave to serve a subpoena seeking documents and
testimony in order to gather evidence that he hopes will support a
motion to certify a class.

Plaintiff Joseph Baum, purporting to act on behalf of a class, has
accused defendant Ability Recovery Service, LLC (Ability) of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Baum alleges that he is one of many people to whom Ability sent an
unlawfully deceptive debt-collection letter. Baum further alleges
that he lacks the sophistication to have seen through the opaque
language of Ability's letter, and he purports to act on behalf of a
class of similarly unsophisticated consumers.

Baum properly served Ability on November 15, 2017, and its answer
was due by December 6, 2017.

Ability did not respond by that date, but Baum did not then take
further action to prosecute his claim until prompted to do so. By
Order dated January 4, 2018, the Court directed Baum to seek a
default by January 25, 2018, unless Ability appeared by that date,
on pain of possible dismissal for failure to prosecute. Baum did
not do so. Instead, on January 22, 2018, he filed the instant
request.

He seeks to subpoena class discovery and depositionsthe precise
discovery demands and deponents being left unspecified) so that he
may later seek a default judgment on a class-wide basis. Baum
argues that he cannot seek class certification and therefore cannot
seek a default judgment on behalf of the putative class  without
such discovery.

The Court agrees that the rights of putative class members should
not be impaired by Ability's default. The Court also agree that it
would be wholly unfair to allow Ability to withhold the discovery
at issue if producing such information to Baum would prevent such a
curtailment of the putative class members' rights. But the Court
disagree that the discovery is necessary to prevent such injustice.
To the contrary, it is class certification itself that would harm
the interests of the putative class. Briefly stated, the problem
arises from both the nature of the proposed class and the differing
statutory remedies available to plaintiffs who proceed as
individuals and as members of a class, respectively.

Baum alleges that he is one of many people to whom Ability sent an
unlawfully deceptive debt-collection letter. Baum further alleges
that he lacks the sophistication to have seen through the opaque
language of Ability's letter, and he purports to act on behalf of a
class of similarly unsophisticated consumers.  

As the Court recently explained at length in Etienne v. Reliant
Capital Solutions, LLC, 16-CV-2359, slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25,
2018), prosecuting a claim under the FDCPA on behalf of a putative
class can risk two forms of injustice to absent members. First, a
putative class member who wishes to seek relief on an individual
basis  unlike the members of many other types of a properly
certified class has few if any obstacles to finding counsel to
prosecute such a claim. Upon successfully prosecuting the claim,
the individual plaintiff can secure an award of statutory damages
of up to $1,000.00.

In contrast, a member of a plaintiff class is entitled to no more
than one percent of defendant's net worth which may be much less
than $1,000.00. Thus, class certification could limit a class
member's recovery without providing any meaningful increase in the
class member's ability to secure any recovery at all. To be sure,
in some cases, class plaintiffs could secure a greater recovery.
And even if they could not, those who understood how poor a bargain
they were being asked to endorse could opt out of a certified
class.  

Accordingly, the Court concludes that permitting the discovery Baum
now proposes would do nothing more than put him into a position to
seek a class certification that the court would likely have strong
reason to deny. Moreover, denying Baum the requested discovery
would not impair either his own interests or those of the putative
class members. Each would in any event be in a position to seek an
award of full statutory damages on an individual basis and if
Ability's response to the instant action provides any useful
indication of its likely reaction to future actions, each is likely
to prevail. Thus, allowing class discovery would impose a burden on
Ability that is not necessary to protect any person's cognizable
interest in prosecuting a viable legal claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9869omd
from Leagle.com.

Joseph Baum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff, represented by Maxim Maximov --
maxim.maximov@ru.ey.com -- Maxim Maximov, LLP.


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Savoia Says
---------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA SAVOIA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ADVANCED
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, a California company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC722759 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sept. 20, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime
wage and meal period premiums under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants directly hired and paid
wages and benefits to Plaintiff and the other class members. The
Defendants continue to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
within the Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight
hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment
with Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a
pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern
and practice involved failing to pay all regular and/or overtime
wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in
violation of California law.

AMM is a full service healthcare operational management and
business consulting company.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA  91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021


AIRCEL LLC: Headrick Class Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Torrey Headrick, Individually, and on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aircel, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00389,
(E.D. Tenn., September 13, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid wages owed
for "off-the-clock" unpaid straight time, and minimum wage and
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Aircel LLC designs and manufactures off-the-shelf and custom
compressed air systems including heated/heatless desiccant air
dryers and cycling/non-cycling refrigerated air dryers from small
point-of-use dryers to large custom engineered compressed air
dryers, a complete line of filtration and separation products.
Headrick worked as an hourly-paid factory employee for Aircel.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


AMERIS BANK: Hanley Files Class Suit in South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ameris Bank. The case
is styled as Joshua M. Hanley on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ameris Bank, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-02687-MGL (D. S.C., Oct. 2, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking.

Ameris Bancorp is an American financial holding company
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. Ameris provides retail and
commercial banking services to its customers in Georgia, Alabama,
Florida, South Carolina and Tennessee through its wholly owned
subsidiary Ameris Bank.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles Harry McDonald, Esq.
     Belser and Belser
     PO Box 96
     Columbia, SC 29202
     Phone: (803) 929-0096
     Fax: (803) 929-0196
     Email: chuck@belserpa.com

          - and -

     Thornwell Forrest Sowell, III, Esq.
     Sowell and DuRant LLC
     1325 Park Street, Suite 100
     Columbia, SC 29201
     Phone: (803) 722-1100
     Fax: (803) 821-8890
     Email: bsowell@sowelldurant.com


ANNA SUI: Faces Burbon Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------
Anna Sui Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The case is styled as Luc Burbon on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Anna Sui Corp., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-09081 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 3, 2018).

Anna Sui Corporation provides fashion products, cosmetics, travel
products, and fragrances for women. Its fashion products include
eyewear and T-shirts. It sells its products online; and through its
stores in Canada, China, Hong Kong, Korea, and Taiwan. Anna Sui
Corporation was founded in 1980 and is based in New York, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Ariel Sues over Rental Agreements
-------------------------------------------------------
SANTOS ARIEL, Individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs APARTMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC
and NORTH SHERIDAN PROPERTY INVESTOR, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2018CH11937 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Sept. 21, 2018), alleges
that Defendants failed to attach to the Plaintiff's and the class's
written rental agreements a copy of the then current Residential
Landlord and Tenant Ordinance summaries, including the version of
the RLTO summary that was updated on March 17, 2016, and the then
current separate summary describing the respective rights,
obligations, and remedies of landlords and tenants with respect to
security deposits, as required by Section 5-12-170 of the RLTO and
made available by the City of Chicago for public inspection and
copying.

According to the complaint, on or about October 4, 2017, the
Plaintiff was offered a written rental agreement for the Dwelling
Unit. The Lease was offered electronically and every page of the
lease includes a reference number. As such, every page/document
included/attached with the Lease when it was offered is identified
by the same reference number. Attached to the Lease, and stamped
with the reference number, was a three page document titled "City
of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance Summary. At
the end of the document is the verbiage "Approved by the City of
Chicago, July 2010."

The "City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance
Summary" "Approved by the City of Chicago, July 2010" attached to
the Lease was not the then current RLTO Summaries. The Lease did
not include the RLTO Summaries, case says.

Apartment Management is a full service property management
company.[BN]

          Jeffrey Sobek, Esq.
          JS LAW
          29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 756 1330
          E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


ARSTRAT LLC: Alexander Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARStrat, LLC. The
case is styled as James Alexander individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARStrat, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-05524 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 2, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

ARstrat is a collection and bad debt resolution provider for the
healthcare industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Sanders Law, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


B COMMUNICATIONS: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in
part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned REX AND
ROBERTA LING LIVING TRUST u/a DECEMBER 6, 1990, AS AMENDED, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. B COMMUNICATIONS LTD., et al., Defendants. No.
17-CV-4937 (JPO). (S.D.N.Y.).

BComm has moved to dismiss the claims against it or, in the
alternative, to stay this action pending resolution of related
criminal proceedings in Israel.

The Lead Plaintiffs, a trio of investors who purchased shares in
Israeli company B Communications Ltd. (BComm), have filed a class
action complaint against BComm and thirteen other defendants on
behalf of themselves and other investors who acquired BComm shares.
The Plaintiffs allege that BComm violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a related Securities and
Exchange Commission regulation, Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5, by misleading investors about the activities of a
telecommunications company in which BComm holds a controlling
interest.

Legal Standard

Motion to Dismiss

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint may be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To avoid this fate, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter that will, if taken to be true, allow the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. Of course, threadbare recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice. Rather, the complaint must contain specific factual
allegations that, if true, permit the court to infer more than the
mere possibility of misconduct.

Motion to Stay

In considering whether a defendant has successfully carried that
burden, courts make a particularized inquiry into the circumstances
of, and the competing interests in, the case, considering factors
such as: 1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case
overlap with those presented in the civil case, 2) the status of
the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted, 3)
the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously
weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused by the delay, 4)
the private interests of and burden on the defendants, 5) the
interests of the courts and 6) the public interest.

Motion to Dismiss

To plead a violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff
must typically allege (1) a material misrepresentation or omission
by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the
misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a
security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5)
economic loss; and (6) loss causation.

The Plaintiffs claim that BComm's failure to disclose the true
nature of the Bezeq-Eurocom deal rendered misleading four
categories of statement contained in BComm's SEC filings.

Statements Regarding BComm's Free Cash Flow

BComm does not dispute that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged
that the free cash flow figures reported in BComm's SEC filings
were inaccurate. Instead, it contends that the Plaintiffs have
inadequately alleged that these figures were material to
investors.

Here, the Plaintiffs have alleged that Yes's artificially inflated
free cash flow represented up to 18.73% of Bezeq's own free cash
flow during the relevant period. And not only did the inflated
figures make Bezeq, and therefore BComm, appear to be more liquid
than it was in reality; they also disguised the fact that Bezeq did
not actually owe the substantial quantities of Additional
Contingent Consideration it was paying out.

The Plaintiffs have thus adequately alleged that BComm's reported
free cash flow figures for 2015 and 2016 were false or misleading
and that a reasonable investor could conclude that those figures
were material to the investment decision.

Statements Regarding the Bezeq Subcommittee

BComm next argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that
any of the statements in BComm's SEC filings regarding the Bezeq
subcommittee were materially misleading because none of the
statements Plaintiffs identify refer to the `independence' of the
special committee or state that it had complied with Israeli law.

BComm is correct that most of its statements about the Bezeq
subcommittee were in no way misleading. For example, one statement
simply reported that a sub-committee of the Board of Directors that
was set up to deal with the topic of the Bezeq-Eurocom deal
approved the transaction between Bezeq and Eurocom to acquire all
the holdings of Eurocom.

The Plaintiffs have therefore adequately alleged that the report
BComm submitted about the Bezeq subcommittee along with its March
18, 2015 SEC filing was materially false or misleading.

The Plaintiffs have failed, however, to establish that any of
BComm's remaining statements regarding the subcommittee were
similarly actionable.

BComm's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

Turning to the statements that incorporate its Code of Ethics,
BComm contends that they are not misleading because they are the
sort of generic puffery that is too vague to create specific
assurances capable of inducing investor reliance.  

The Court agrees. The Code of Ethics states that BComm employees
must comply with all applicable laws and regulations and are
expected to observe high standards of business and personal ethics
and to avoid allowing their private interests to interfere, or
appear to interfere, with the interests of BComm as a whole.

To be sure, some statements, in context, may amount to more than
puffery and may in some circumstances violate the securities laws:
for example, a company's specific statements that emphasize its
reputation for integrity or ethical conduct as central to its
financial condition or that are clearly designed to distinguish the
company from other specified companies in the same industry.

Ultimately, the vague platitudes in BComm's Code of Ethics are
insufficiently concrete to be misleading in a way that could give
rise to liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

Statements Regarding Disclosure and Reporting Controls

Finally, BComm argues that its certifications regarding the
adequacy of its internal disclosure and financial-reporting
controls are not misleading because the complaint fails to allege
any particular deficiency in the controls.

Here, too, BComm is correct. The complaint does nothing to describe
BComm's system of internal controls, let alone to identify why that
system was inadequate. Instead, Plaintiffs invite the inference
that the internal controls must have been inadequate because they
failed to ensure that BComm reported accurate Free Cash Flow and
compliance with Israel Securities Laws and Penal Laws.

The Plaintiffs have therefore failed to adequately allege that
BComm's statements attesting to the adequacy of its internal
disclosure and financial reporting controls were false or
misleading.

Scienter

Here, the complaint makes clear which BComm officers were
responsible for the allegedly misleading SEC filings. According to
the complaint, each filing was signed by either BComm's CEO at the
time, Doron Turgeman, or one of the two people who served as
BComm's CFOs during the relevant period, Itzik Tadmor or Ehud
Yahalom. Thus, corporate scienter can be ascribed to BComm if the
complaint establishes that Turgeman, Tadmor, or Yahalom knew or
recklessly disregarded the risk that BComm's SEC filings
misrepresented the nature of Bezeq's deal with Eurocom if those
officers are alleged to have been sufficiently knowledgeable about
BComm, in other words, to know that the SEC filings were false.

The complaint, though, contains no specific factual allegations
that create an inference, let alone a strong one, that Turgeman,
Tadmor, or Yahalom knew the true nature of the Bezeq-Eurocom deal.
None of these three BComm officers is alleged to have participated
in compromising the supposedly independent Bezeq board-of-directors
subcommittee or in manipulating Yes's free cash flow figure nor is
the ISA's investigation alleged to have implicated any of them in
misconduct, Similarly, none of these officers is alleged to have
been privy to the red flags the complaint maintains were raised
during the deliberations over the Bezeq-Yes merger.

Without any allegations sufficient to create a strong inference
that the BComm officers directly responsible for the allegedly
misleading SEC filings acted with the requisite scienter.

Although the complaint here never specifically alleges that
Elovitch examined the contents of BComm's SEC filings, it must be
the case that, as BComm's controlling shareholder and
board-of-directors chairman, Elovitch knew that, absent disclosure
of the true nature of the Bezeq-Eurocom deal, BComm's statements to
investors would be materially misleading. Indeed, the complaint
alleges that, before news of the facts surrounding the
Bezeq-Eurocom deal went public, one of Elovitch's companies sold
vast quantities of BComm stock at an artificially inflated price.
It requires no great inferential leap to surmise that Elovitch,
despite not having himself drafted the allegedly misleading
statements at issue, deliberately stood idly by despite being well
aware that BComm's investors were being taken for a ride.

In short, Plaintiffs have pleaded facts sufficient to create a
strong inference that Elovitch acted with scienter and that his
scienter can be imputed to BComm, the company he controlled.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have stated a plausible Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claim against BComm, at least with respect to its
reported free cash flow figures and its March 18, 2015 filing
regarding the Bezeq subcommittee.

Motion to Stay

BComm next argues that even if Plaintiffs have stated a plausible
securities-fraud claim against it, the entire litigation should be
stayed pending resolution of the criminal investigation in Israel.


The first factor, which courts have recognized as particularly
significant, is the overlap of the issues in the criminal and civil
cases. According to the complaint, as well as to statements
submitted by the AGI in the Israeli litigation, the ongoing
criminal investigation in Israel focuses on the very Bezeq-Eurocom
transaction that takes center stage in this civil suit.

Indeed, the Plaintiffs never dispute that there is likely to be
substantial overlap between the civil and criminal proceedings
here.

The second factor the status of the criminal case, including
whether the defendants have been indicted  clearly in Plaintiffs'
favor. Almost a year has passed since the ISA recommended criminal
indictments in connection with the Bezeq-Eurocom transaction and
yet nothing indicates that indictments are forthcoming. Courts in
this district have generally refused to stay a civil proceeding
where the defendant has not been indicted but is under criminal
investigation.

The third factor requires weighing the private interests of the
plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously against the prejudice to
plaintiffs caused by the delay. BComm itself acknowledges that a
stay would subject Plaintiffs to uncertainty as to the length of
time the criminal action may take since indictments have not yet
been issued, despite their clear interest in commencing discovery
in order to pursue an expeditious resolution of their claims. And
nowhere does BComm dispute that delaying the civil case
indefinitely runs the risk that defendants may not ultimately have
sufficient assets to satisfy a judgment should Plaintiffs succeed.
This factor too, then, weighs against a stay.

The fourth factor is "the private interests of and burden on the
defendants." BComm expresses concern that Israeli law might prevent
witnesses who are under investigation from providing testimony and
that those witnesses might in any event choose to invoke the
privilege against self-incrimination rather than testify. This
concern, though, is premature. As a corporation, BComm itself has
no constitutional right against self-incrimination. Thus, although
this factor may well ultimately weigh in BComm's favor, the extent
to which it does is as yet unclear.  

Fifth, the Court considers its own well-recognized interest in
disposing `of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
effort. BComm argues that judicial economy favors a stay because,
for example, evidence gathered and presented during the criminal
prosecution can be used in the civil action. Moreover, it argues,
this Court has an interest in deferring out of comity to the
interests of foreign governments. Again, though, the Israeli
authorities have not chosen to take any role in this litigation,
and the judicial economies that BComm anticipates will materialize
only if there ever is indeed a criminal prosecution. At present,
the Court has no interest in imposing certain delay in the hopes of
securing uncertain efficiencies down the road.

Sixth and finally, granting a stay here would not serve the public
interest. After all, parties who claim to have been victimized by
frauds or other crimes are entitled to pursue their civil remedies,
and it would be perverse if plaintiffs who claim to be the victims
of criminal activity were to receive slower justice than other
plaintiffs because the behavior they allege is sufficiently
egregious to have attracted the attention of the criminal
authorities. Absent a more compelling showing that expeditious
resolution of the civil claims against BComm will impede Israel's
enforcement of its criminal laws, BComm has failed to demonstrate
that the public interest favors a stay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7pyd5rd from
Leagle.com

Rex and Roberta Ling Living Trust u/a December 6, 1990, As Amended,
John Taylor Jones & David Thomas Jones, Lead Plaintiffs,
represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, Justin Solomon Nematzadeh -- jnematzadeh@pomlaw.com
-- Pomerantz LLP & Marc Ian Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP.

Lynne P. Maleeff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander
Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

B Communications Ltd, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Boxer --
boxer@clm.com -- Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, Dylan Lorenzo Ruffi
-- ruffi@clm.com -- Carter Ledyard & Milburn, LLP & Jacob Hershel
Nemon -- nemon@clm.com -- Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP.

Doron Turgeman, Itzik Tadmor & Ehud Yahalom, Defendants,
represented by Jeffrey S. Boxer, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP.


BDO USA: Faces Kaniki Suit over Sale of Patriot National Shares
---------------------------------------------------------------
MBAGO M. KANIKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STEVEN M. MARIANO; THOMAS C. SHIELDS; JOHN
R. DEL PIZZO; AUSTIN J. SHANFELTER; CHRISTOPHER PESCH; CHARLES H.
WALSH; QUENTIN P. SMITH; BDO USA LLP, Defendants, Case No.
0:18-cv-62097-WPD (S.D. Fla., Sept. 5, 2018) is an action on behalf
of all purchasers of Patriot National common stock from January 15,
2015 to November 22, 2017 who sustained significant losses due to
the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that from the moment Patriot
National sold shares to the public in its initial public offering
("IPO") on January 15, 2015, the Defendants, led by Steven Mariano
("Mariano"), Patriot National's controlling stockholder and former
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, presented a false
image of Patriot National and its business.  The lawsuit contends
that the Defendants intentionally withheld information regarding
its key customer, Guarantee Insurance Company, Inc. ("GIC"),
another company controlled by Mariano. Even though GIC was
responsible for 60% to 70% of Patriot National's income and
revenue, and was identified as critical for Patriot National's
future growth, the Defendants failed to disclose that GIC was on
the brink of failure throughout the Class Period and to avoid
insolvency, it was dependent on repeated loans and capital
contributions by Mariano.

GIC was forced into receivership by the Florida Office of Insurance
Regulation ("FOIR") on November 13, 2017 with the receivable
unpaid.

Patriot National filed for bankruptcy on February 1, 2018 and its
Plan of Reorganization was confirmed by the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on May 4, 2018.
Patriot National's stock, which was sold to the Plaintiff and other
members of the public at $14.00 per share in its IPO in January
2015, is now worthless, as Plan of Reorganization wipes out all
existing equity and leaves stockholders with nothing.

In sum, Patriot National should never have become a publicly traded
company. The Defendants' misrepresentations induced the public to
invest in a company that was destined to fail by all legitimate
metrics. The Defendants' fraud prevented investors from learning of
this risk and avoiding Patriot National at all costs. Patriot
National's inevitable demise was a materialization of this risk,
and investors have lost millions of dollars as a consequence. In
addition to wrongdoing by Mariano, Patriot National's management,
and the Board throughout Patriot National's lifetime as a public
entity, its auditors, BDO USA LLP, face liability for the
misleading audit opinions provided by BDO in the IPO and during the
Class Period.

BDO USA, LLP provides accounting and financial advisory services.
The firm offers assurance, risk consulting, tax advisory, SEC
compliance, investment banking, litigation, and technology advisory
services. BDO USA, LLP operates as a subsidiary of BDO
International Limited. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21st Way
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (561) 676-6370
          Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
          E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

               - and -

          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Nicholas Porritt, Esq.
          Amy Miller, Esq.
          William J. Fields, Esq.
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com
                  nporritt@zlk.com
                  amiller@zlk.com
                  wfields@zlk.com


BLUE BUS: Alley, et al. Seek Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ALLEY AND ARYA KHOSRAVI,, on behalf of themselves, all other
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the
Plaintiff, VS. BLUE BUS TOURS COMPANY, LLC, ET AL., the Defendant,
Case No.: CGC-18-569909 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 19, 2018) seeks to
recover unpaid straight time and overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a continuous
and widespread policy of "clocking out" Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated for 30 minutes periods, even though Plaintiffs
and those similarly situated were suffered and/or permitted to work
during these deduction periods, thereby deducting 30 minutes of
paid time, including straight time and overtime. The common
policies and practices of the Defendant failure to comply with
California wage and hours laws, Wage Orders, and/or the California
Labor Code.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          Alexandra Shipman, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade St.
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048


BREG INC: Eduardo Cepe Seeks Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------
EDUARDO CEPE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BREG, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No.: 37-2018-00047832-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sep. 21, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime and
failed to pay meal period premiums; and failed to pay minimum wages
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, jointly and severally,
employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non­-exempt employee, from
approximately October 2014 to approximately March 2016, in the
State of California, County of San Diego. Defendants hired
Plaintiff and the other class members, classified them as
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them
for all hours worked and missed meal periods and/or rest breaks.

The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a
day and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with
Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges, that Defendants engaged in a
pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern
and practice involved, failing to pay them for all regular and/or
overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks
in violation of California law, case says.

Breg, Inc. manufactures and markets sports medicine products and
services for orthopedic patient care.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA  91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021

               - and -

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245


BULLET PRODUCTION: DeBord Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Debord, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bullet Production Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00292, (S.D. Tex., September 17, 2018),
seeks to recover compensation, overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

Bullet Production Services, LLC provides onshore well testing,
flowback and torque and test services to the oil and gas industry
where DeBOrd worked as an oil field worker. He claims he did not
receive overtime compensation at the required rate of
time-and-one-half for all hours worked over forty each workweek.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq,
      George Schimmel, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com
             geordie@a2xlaw.com


BURROW INC: Faces Kiler ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burrow, Inc. The case
is styled as Marion Kiler individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Burrow, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05513 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 2, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Burrow, Inc. engages in the design, manufacture, and supply of
fabric sofas for use in homes. The company was founded in 2016 and
is based in New York, New York. The company has a manufacturing
facility in Mexico City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


CARLSON WAGONLIT: Sued by Gunderson for Violating Cal. Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GUNDERSON, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CARLSON WAGONLIT TRAVEL, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 3:18-cv-05803 (N.D. Cal., September 21, 2018), challenges
the Defendants' alleged systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of the California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code.

Wagonlit Travel, Inc., is a Delaware corporation doing business in
the state of California.  Wagonlit is engaged in managing business
travel, meetings and events for global organizations, such as
Facebook.

Facebook, Inc., is a Delaware corporation doing business in the
state of California.  The Company operates the Facebook social
networking Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  temerson@bradleygrombacher.com


CARMAX AUTO: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Doucette Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN DOUCETTE; on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11978-PBS (D. Mass., Sep. 19, 2018),
alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages, minimum wages,
Sunday premium pay, and/or from whose wages Defendant took improper
deductions pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts his breach of
contract claim on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals whom Defendant employed in Massachusetts and
throughout the United States and who may elect to opt into this
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The similarly situated
individuals include any sales employee whom Defendant failed to pay
an hourly rate equal to one and one half minimum wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 during a week.

CarMax Auto retails new and used automobiles. The Company offers
passenger automobiles, trucks, trailers, buses, and other motor
vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brook S. Lane, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.          
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607 3260
          E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com
                  hillary@fairworklaw.com


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss West & Hopson Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court granted the
company's motion to dismiss the case entitled, Lisa West and Stormy
Hopson, individually and as class representatives on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

On February 18, 2016, an alleged class action was filed against the
company, as well as several other operators in the District Court
of Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma, alleging claims on
behalf of named plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons
having an insurable real property interest in eight counties in
central Oklahoma (the "Class Area").

The plaintiffs allege the oil and gas operations conducted by the
company and the other defendants have induced earthquakes in the
Class Area. The plaintiffs did not seek damages for property
damage, instead asked the court to require the defendants to
reimburse plaintiffs and class members for earthquake insurance
premiums from 2011 through the time at which the court determines
there is no longer a risk of induced earthquakes, as well as
attorney fees and costs and other relief.

The company responded to the petition, denied the allegations and
raised a number of affirmative defenses.

On March 18, 2016, the case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under the Class
Action Fairness Act. On May 20, 2016, the company filed a Notice of
Suggestion of Bankruptcy, informing the court that the company had
filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code. On October 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint adding additional defendants and increasing
the Class Area to 25 Central Oklahoma counties. Other defendants
filed motions to dismiss the action which was granted on May 12,
2017.

On July 18, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
adding additional named plaintiffs as putative class
representatives and adding three additional counties to the
putative class area. In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs
seek damages for nuisance, negligence, abnormally dangerous
activities, and trespass.

Due to Chaparral's bankruptcy, plaintiffs specifically limit
alleged damages related to Chaparral's disposal activities
occurring after the company's emergence from bankruptcy on March
21, 2017. The company moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on September 15, 2017. On August 13, 2018, the court granted the
company's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs' attorneys filed a proof of claim on behalf of the
putative class claiming in excess of $75,000 in the company's
Chapter 11 Cases. The company filed an objection to class treatment
of the proof of claim filed by the West plaintiffs in our
Bankruptcy proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court had a hearing on the
company's objection and on February 9, 2018, granted the company's
objection to class treatment of the proof of claim.

Chaparral Energy said, "We dispute the plaintiffs' claims, dispute
that the case meets the requirements for a class action, dispute
the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and are
vigorously defending the case."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Bid to Stay Bennett Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the company filed a motion to stay in the case
entitled, Lacheverjuan Bennett et al. v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.,
et al.  

On March 26, 2018, a group of twenty-seven individual plaintiffs
filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Logan County, State of
Oklahoma against twenty-three named defendants, including the
company, and twenty-five unnamed defendants. Plaintiffs are all
property owners and residents of Logan County, Oklahoma, and allege
the defendants, all oil and gas companies which have engaged in
injection well operations, induced earthquakes which have caused
damage to real and personal property, and caused emotional damages.
Plaintiffs claim absolute liability for ultra-hazardous activities,
negligence, gross negligence, public and private nuisance, and
trespass, and ask for compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorney fees and costs.

Jointly with other defendants, the company filed a motion to stay
the proceedings pending resolution of Lisa West et al. v. ABC Oil
Company, Inc.

Chaparral Energy said "We dispute the plaintiffs' claims, dispute
the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and are
vigorously defending the case."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant.  The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Butler Suit in Oklahoma Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the James Butler et al. v. Berexco, L.L.C.,
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C, et al. lawsuit remains stayed.

On October 13, 2017, a group of fifty-two individual plaintiffs
filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Payne County, State of
Oklahoma against twenty-six named defendants, including the
company, and twenty-five unnamed defendants. Plaintiffs are all
property owners and residents of Payne County, Oklahoma, and allege
salt water disposal activities by the defendants, owners or
operators of salt water disposal wells, induced earthquakes which
have caused damage to real and personal property, and emotional
damages.

Plaintiffs claim absolute liability for ultra-hazardous activities,
negligence, gross negligence, public and private nuisance,
trespass, and ask for compensatory and punitive damages.

On December 18, 2017, the company moved the court to dismiss the
claims against it. Prior to plaintiffs responding to the company's
motion, a hearing on a motion to stay the Butler case was held on
January 4, 2018. The judge granted the motion to stay proceedings,
ruling from the bench that the Butler case was stayed pending final
judgment or denial of class certification in the Lisa West et al.
v. ABC Oil Company, Inc. case.

The company's motion to dismiss will not be considered until the
stay is lifted, at which time, if necessary, the company will
dispute plaintiffs' claims, dispute that the remedies requested are
available under Oklahoma law, and vigorously defend the case.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Griggs Suit in Oklahoma Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the company filed a notice of the dismissal in
the case, Lisa Griggs and April Marler, on behalf of themselves and
other Oklahoma citizens similarly situated v. New Dominion, L.L.C.
et al.

On July 21, 2017, an alleged class action was filed against the
company and other operators, in the District Court of Logan County,
State of Oklahoma. The named plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of
themselves and Oklahoma citizens owning a home or business between
March 30, 2014, and the present in a Class Area which encompasses
nine counties in central Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs allege disposal of saltwater produced during oil and
gas operations induced earthquakes in the Class Area, and each
defendant has liability under theories of ultra-hazardous
activities, negligence, nuisance, and trespass.

On October 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Petition in Logan County, Oklahoma, adding Creek County, Oklahoma
to the Class Area, and adding an additional earthquake to the list
of seismic events allegedly caused by the defendants. The
plaintiffs asked the court to award unspecified damages for damage
to real and personal property and loss of market value, loss of use
and enjoyment of the properties, and emotional harm, as well as
punitive damages and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The case was removed to the Western District of Oklahoma on
December 15, 2017, and on December 18, 2017, plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the company from the suit without prejudice.

Chaparral Energy said "Due to subsequent remand to state court, we
filed notice of the dismissal in the state court action on January
31, 2018."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Petition for Rehearing in Donelson Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the petition for
rehearing of an appeals court decision related to the case
entitled, Martha Donelson and John Friend, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral
Energy, L.L.C., remains pending.

On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was filed against the
company, as well as several other operators in Osage County, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma,
alleging claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all similarly
situated Osage County land owners and surface lessees. The
plaintiffs challenged leases and drilling permits approved by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs without the environmental studies
allegedly required under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).

The plaintiffs assert claims seeking recovery for trespass,
nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment. Relief sought includes
declaring oil and natural gas leases and drilling permits obtained
in Osage County without a prior NEPA study void ab initio, removing
the company from all properties owned by the class members,
disgorgement of profits, and compensatory and punitive damages.

On March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against all
defendants as an improper challenge under NEPA and the
Administrative Procedures Act. On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed motions to alter or amend the court's opinion and vacate the
judgment, and to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies
which the court found in the dismissed complaint. On May 20, 2016,
the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, and as a
result has not responded to the plaintiffs' motions.

After plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied, plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on
December 6, 2016. Oral argument regarding the appeal was held on
November 14, 2017, and on April 5, 2018, the Tenth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal. Plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing on May 21,
2018.

Chaparral Energy said, "We anticipate any monetary liability
related to this claim will be discharged. We dispute plaintiffs'
allegations and dispute that the case meets the requirements for a
class action."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant.  The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CITIGROUP INC: Court Denies Certification in Tomeo TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
EDUARDO TOMEO; JOSEPH MORDEN; PAMELA SLAUGHTER; and FRANK LOPEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CITIGROUP, INC. and CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendants.
No. 13 C 4046. (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Eduardo Tomeo, Joseph Morden, Pamela Slaughter, and
Frank Lopez bring a class action complaint against CitiGroup, Inc.
and CitiMortgage, Inc. (Citi). Plaintiffs assert that Citi violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by calling their
telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS)
without their express consent.

Tomeo seeks to pursue the action not only individually but also on
behalf of the two following classes:

   Cease and Desist Class: All persons (1) during the period of
October 27, 2010 to November 30, 2014 (2) to whom Citi placed two
or more voice calls or short message service (SMS) calls (3) using
the Aspect UIP or Genesys dialers (4) and Citi's business records
indicate the person requested not to be called.

   Wrong Number Class: All persons (1) during the period of October
27, 2010 to November 30, 2014 (2) to whom Citi placed two or more
voice calls, (3) using the Aspect UIP dialer, (4) and Citi's
business records indicate that Citi was told that it had called the
wrong number.

Because the Court finds that common issues of fact do not
predominate over the questions affecting individual members, the
Court denies certification of the Rule 23(b)(3) classes.
To satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, Tomeo must
ultimately be able to prove his case through use of evidence that
is common to the class rather than individual to its members.

Here, Citi has put forth specific evidence establishing that a
significant percentage of the putative class consented to receiving
calls. Hansen intentionally avoided stating an opinion on the issue
of consent in the Hansen Report and Citi's experts noted that the
groups that Hansen identified as individuals contacted after Citi
coded the account as a Wrong Number, Do Not Call, Cease and Desist,
or Case 998 (Flags) did not necessarily constitute individuals who
did not consent to contact. In the Taylor Rebuttal, Taylor reviewed
a sample of over 1,000 Individual Note Screens and concluded that,
because the Flags were not always accurate and accountholders
frequently went back and forth between giving consent and revoking
it, the only way to determine consent for each accountholder is to
individually review Citi's files on each accountholder.  

Taylor supports his opinion with specific evidence: regarding the
Cease and Desist Class, he looked at accounts with Case 998 flags,
reviewing about 15% of the accounts in the Case 998 data that
Hansen reviewed, and 17% of the time, the accountholder
re-consented to contact. Because some accounts in Hansen's lists
received significantly more calls than others, the number of calls
disqualified by individual analysis could be much higher.
Similarly, with the Wrong Number Class, Taylor examined a large
portion of the accounts within the Individual Note Screens
production that contained the Wrong Number flag and determined that
15% of those accounts appeared to be instances where the number did
in fact belong to a borrower instances where either the so-called
wrong number later placed an incoming call to Citi, or where
multiple phone numbers for an account were all flagged as wrong
numbers.  

As with the consent issue, Taylor noted that the process for
determining actual wrong numbers was time-intensive and manual and
required review of each Individual Note Screen to know with
certainty that the Citi placed the call to a Wrong Number.

Moreover, Hansen has not actually executed any of the methods that
he proposes for determining consent or actual wrong numbers in the
Hansen Reply. Citi argues that his intention to do so later is
insufficient for establishing predominance for class certification.
In Parko v. Shell Oil Co., 739 F.3d 1083, 1086 (7th Cir. 2014),
the Seventh Circuit rejected the district court's determination
that it was enough at this stage that the plaintiffs intend to rely
on common evidence and a single methodology to prove both injury
and damages, and that whether the evidence and methodology are
sound and convincing is a question that could be postponed until
the court made a merits determination.  Instead, it held that if
intentions were enough, predominance, as a check on casting
lawsuits in the class action mold, would be out the window.

Although the expert in Parko had not put forth a workable
methodology, the Seventh Circuit's holding generally establishes
that Court must determine whether the plaintiff has put forth
actual evidence that common issues overwhelm the individual issues
in the case.  The cases Tomeo cites to contradict this point are
inapposite. In Smith v. Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc., No. CV 09-4957
CAS (RCx), 2011 WL 3204682, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2011), the
calculation that plaintiff did not actually make was merely
multiplication. Second, in Meyer v. Bebe Stores, Inc., No.
14-cv-00267-YGR, 2017 WL 558017, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2017), the
district court declined to decertify a class on the basis of
manageability, not predominance, where the plaintiff's expert
averred that he could analyze a list of telephone numbers to
determine which would have been sent a text message, even though
the defendant argued that the analysis would not conclusively
determine who received the text messages.

Tomeo cannot establish predominance based on Hansen's proposed, but
unexecuted and unproven analysis.

The Court denies Tomeo's motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yabsu4hn from
Leagle.com.

Eduardo Tomeo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elisabeth Keller --
akeller@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Jennifer Rust
Murray -- jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group
PLLC, pro hac vice & Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@dlcfirm.com --
Dicello Levitt & Casey LLC.

Pamela Slaughter & JOSEPH MORDEN, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC.

Frank Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Rust Murray,
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice.

Citigroup Inc., Defendant, represented by Hans J. Germann --
hgermann@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Lucia Nale --
lnale@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Debra L. Bogo-Ernst --
dernst@mayerbrown -- Mayer Brown LLP, Joseph Michael Snapper --
jsnapper@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Michael Hercules
Bornhorst -- mbornhorst@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Michele
Louise Odorizzi -- courtnotification@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown
LLP.  

CitiMortgage, Inc., Defendant, represented by Debra L. Bogo-Ernst ,
Mayer Brown LLP, Hans J. Germann , Mayer Brown LLP, Joseph Michael
Snapper , Mayer Brown Llp, Michael Hercules Bornhorst , Mayer Brown
LLP & Michele Louise Odorizzi , Mayer Brown LLP.

Joseph Morden & Pamela Slaughter, Defendants, represented by
Jennifer Rust Murray , Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac
vice.


CLIENT SERVICES: Heaton Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Stephanie Heaton on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc., CSI
Interco, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05511 (E.D. N.Y., Oct.
2, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions. It provides customer care, technical support, customer
acquisition, cross sell/up-sell, customer retention,
product/account activation, appointment setting/reminders, disaster
support, first notice of loss, market research, customer
satisfaction surveys, and multi-channel interaction management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin. Esq.
     775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Phone: (631) 335-1107
     Email: mpash@verizon.net



CLIENT SERVICES: Lantry Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Desirae Lantry individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01694 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 3, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions. It provides customer care, technical support, customer
acquisition, cross sell/up-sell, customer retention,
product/account activation, appointment setting/reminders, disaster
support, first notice of loss, market research, customer
satisfaction surveys, and multi-channel interaction management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marwan Rocco Daher, Esq.
     SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
     2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181
     Fax: (630) 575-8188
     Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com


COMMERCIAL INTERIORS: Appeals Order in Salinas Suit to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Commercial Interiors, Incorporated, filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Mario Salinas, et al. v.
Commercial Interiors, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:12-cv-01973-PWG, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge Gina L. Simms recommended that the District Court grants the
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and award costs.

The protracted litigation began almost six years ago on July 2,
2012, when the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant
Commercial and J.I. General Contractors, Inc. ("J.I."), alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.  The
Plaintiffs initially intended to bring the action individually, as
a collective action under the FLSA, and as a Class Action under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  The class and collective action
certifications were ultimately denied, and the Plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint on March 31, 2014 with five remaining
individuals.

The appellate case is captioned as Mario Salinas, et al. v.
Commercial Interiors, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-2105, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees MARIO SALINAS, BERNALDINO SALINAS, FRANKLIN
HENRIQUEZ and WILLIAM ASCENCIO, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Sally Jean Dworak-Fisher, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
          1 North Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21201-0000
          Telephone: (410) 625-9409
          E-mail: dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org

               - and -

          Ryan Edward Griffin, Esq.
          JAMES & HOFFMAN, PC
          1130 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-0000
          Telephone: (202) 496-0500
          E-mail: regriffin@jamhoff.com

               - and -

          Barbra A. Kavanaugh, Esq.
          DC EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE CENTER
          1413 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 645-5563
          E-mail: bkavanaugh@dcejc.org

Defendant-Appellant COMMERCIAL INTERIORS, INCORPORATED, is
represented by:

          Michael J. Jack, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J. JACK
          11165 Stratfield Court
          Marriottsville, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 442-2232


CONN APPLIANCES: Underpays Sales Associates, Duran et al. Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE DURAN, and ROSA RESENDEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs V. CONN APPLIANCES, INC.
D/B/A CONN'S, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00761-RP (W.D. Tex.,
Sept. 5, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as sales associates.

Conn's Appliances, Inc. owns and operates a chain of retail home
appliances stores. The company is based in The Woodlands, Texas.
Conn's Appliances, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Conns Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
          E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


CORPO MENTE: Jerome Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Jerome, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Corpo Mente Bonita Springs LLC, Corpo Mente Ft. Myers
LLC, Corpo Mente LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and
Ruben R. Ayala Olvera, Individually, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00389, (M.D. Fla., September 17, 2018) seeks unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
costs and attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post-judgment
interest associated with the bringing of this action, plus any
additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate several Crunch Fitness locations in Florida
where Jerome worked as a maintenance employee. He claims to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without being paid
overtime wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
      Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com


CREDIT BUREAU: Kang Files FCRA Suit in E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Bureau
Connection, Inc. The case is styled as Sung Gon Kang on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit
Bureau Connection, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01359-AWI-SKO
(E.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Credit Bureau Connection has roots in the credit report, regulatory
compliance, sales, desking, and F&I system development fields
dating back to the early 1980s. In recent years, Credit Bureau
Connection, also known as CBC, has become a recognized industry
leader in credit reporting and compliance solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
     Caddell & Chapman
     628 East 9th St.
     Houston, TX 77007-1722
     Phone: (713) 751-0400
     Fax: (713) 751-0906
     Email: mac@caddellchapman.com

          - and -

     Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
     Caddell & Chapman
     1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
     Houston, TX 77010
     Phone: (713) 751-0400
     Fax: (713) 751-0906
     Email: cbc@caddellchapman.com


CYTOSPORT INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Clay Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Defendant CytoSport, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Chayla Clay, et al. v. CytoSport, Inc., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 14, 2018, Judge
M. James Lorenz granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion for partial summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs are consumers, who purchased the Defendant's protein
shake and/or protein powder.  They allege that (1) the Nutrition
Facts panel and packaging of some of the Defendant's ready-to-drink
protein shake products overstated the amount of protein content;
(2) the Ingredients section on the labels of their Muscle Milk
protein powder products included amino acid L-glutamine, it was
also listed as an ingredient of the "Precision Protein Blend"
elsewhere on the labels, and an L-glutamine molecule was also shown
in a chart of the amino acids profile for some of the products,
implying that L-glutamine was included in its unbonded form, when
none was included; and (3) prominently displaying on its Muscle
Milk protein powder packaging that the product was "lean" or
contained a special blend of "Lean Lipids," when the products
contained oils and were no leaner than other protein powders on the
market which were not marketed as lean.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's product labeling is
false and misleading in violation of the federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act, other federal laws, as well as California, Florida
and Michigan state consumer protection laws.  In the operative
first amended complaint, they allege causes of action for violation
of California False Advertising Law, California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Michigan Consumer Protection Act
and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, among other violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Chayla Clay, et al. v.
CytoSport, Inc., Case No. 18-80123, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents CHRIS ROMAN, class representatives for the
nationwide classes and class representative for the California
classes; CHAYLA CLAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, as class representative for the nationwide and
California classes; ERICA EHRLICHMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, as class representative for the
nationwide and Michigan class; and LOGAN REICHERT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, as class representative
for the nationwide and Florida classes, are represented by:

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com
                  jrk@classactionlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC
          One Towne Square
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com

Defendant-Petitioner CYTOSPORT, INC., a California Corporation, is
represented by:

          Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766-8138
          E-mail: aaron.vanoort@faegrebd.com


DIAMOND LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Sandoval Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO SANDOVAL, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs DIAMOND LANDSCAPING, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC722763 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wages under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants as an hourly employee. The  Plaintiff was, and is, a
victim of Defendants' policies and/or practices, lost money and/or
property, and has been deprived of the rights guaranteed to him by
California Labor Code. The Defendants did (and do) business by
providing landscaping services throughout the County of Los Angeles
and State of California. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and
other, similarly-situated non-exempt employees within, among other
counties, Los Angeles County and the State of California, and,
therefore, were (and are) doing business in the County of Los
Angeles and the State of California.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA  90245
          Telephone: (424) 322 4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322 4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  xenguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                  xmmoore@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA  90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Decision in Revitch TCPA Suit to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant DirecTV, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Jeremy Revitch v. DIRECTV, LLC, Case No.
3:18-cv-01127-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 12, 2018, the
District Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

DirecTV brought the Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay
Litigation, arguing that because Mr. Revitch is a wireless customer
of AT&T Mobility LLC (AT&T Mobility), his claim is governed by the
arbitration provision contained in his agreement with AT&T
Mobility, which covers claims asserted against affiliates of AT&T.

Plaintiff Jeremy Revitch filed the putative class action against
DirecTV based on an alleged automated call he received from DirecTV
advertising its services.  He alleges that the call was made
without his prior express written consent and, therefore, violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeremy Revitch v. DIRECTV, LLC,
Case No. 18-16823, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant DIRECTV, LLC's opening brief is due on
      November 23, 2018;

   -- Appellee Jeremy Revitch's answering brief is due on
      December 24, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JEREMY REVITCH, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com

Defendant-Appellant DIRECTV, LLC, is represented by:

          Hans Germann, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-4637
          Telephone: (312) 701-8792
          E-mail: hgermann@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Bonner Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC et al. The case is styled as Trent Bonner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00307 (S.D. Tex., Oct.
3, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Dynamic Recovery Solutions is a third party debt collection
agency.

LVNV Funding LLC, purchases portfolios of both domestic (U.S.) and
international consumer debt owned by credit grantors including
banks and finance companies, and by other debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
     The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein
     18208 Preston Rd, Ste D-9 No. 256
     Dallas, TX 75252
     Phone: (646) 753-0149
     Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


EMERY FEDERAL: Court Grants Final Approval on $9MM Settlement Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of Emery Federal Credit Union Class Action
Settlement in the case captioned Frank A. and Shelly Palombaro,
Jr., Plaintiffs, v. Emery Federal Credit Union, Defendant. Case No.
1:15-cv-792. (S.D. Ohio)

This case involves an alleged mortgage kickback scheme in which
Genuine Title, LLC (Genuine Title) by itself and through sham
companies, provided cash payments, marketing materials, and other
benefits to mortgage brokers employed by Emery Federal Credit Union
(Emery). In return, the Emery mortgage brokers referred clients to
Genuine Title for title and settlement services.  This scheme is
alleged to violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA).

Settlement Agreement Terms

The modified class definition is as follows:

     All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a
federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 2602) originated or
brokered by Emery for which Genuine Title provided a settlement
service, as identified on the borrower's HUD-1, between January 1,
2009, and December 31, 2014. Exempted from this class is any person
who, during the period of January 1, 2009, through December 31,
2014, was an employee, officer and/or agent of Defendant Emery
Federal Credit Union, Genuine Title LLC, Brandon Glickstein, Inc.,
Competitive Advantage Media Group LLC, and/or Dog Days Marketing,
LLC.

The Settlement Agreement establishes a $9,000,000 common fund of
which the Emery Class will receive a proportionate share after the
deduction for payment of a settlement administrator, payment of
class counsel's costs, expenses, and fees, and payment of class
representatives' service awards. Class counsel may petition the
court for approval of attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed
30% of the common fund and for expenses actually incurred, and
class representatives may petition the Court for service awards not
to exceed $5,000 per award.

The Plaintiffs estimate that taking all the deductions into
consideration, class members are projected to recover approximately
$1,160 per loan.

Final Approval Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)

In determining whether the terms of the settlement are fair,
reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23, the Court considers several
factors, including: (1) the risk of fraud or collusion; (2) the
complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the
amount of discovery engaged in by the parties; (4) the likelihood
of success on the merits; (5) the opinions of class counsel and
class representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class members;
and (7) the public interest.  

The Court finds that all of these criteria are met here, for the
reasons set forth by class counsel in their brief and as stated on
the record at the final approval hearing.

First, the risk of fraud or collusion is low, as the parties'
negotiations were at arms-length and preceded by adversarial
litigation, including disputed briefing over dismissal and class
certification. Plaintiffs spent months investigating Genuine
Title's practices and developing their claims through extensive
discovery practice. Settlement was reached after a full-day
conference with Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman, which reflect
the arms-length nature of such negotiations.  

Second, the complexity, expense and likely duration of the
underlying litigation supports approval as well. Taking this case
to trial presented serious risks to both class members and Emery.
Discovery and motion practice have been contentious, and Emery
raised limitations and other affirmative defenses. In addition,
both parties faced the complexity and logistical difficulty of
trying a 5,000-member class action to a jury. Emery's petition to
the Sixth Circuit also was pending at the time the parties reached
settlement.  

Third, the discovery engaged in by the parties to date has been
extensive and weighs in favor of final approval. Discovery involved
tremendous efforts to uncover the size and scope of the alleged
scheme, which was detailed at length at the final fairness hearing.
Class counsel represent that they served 39 third-party records
subpoenas, reviewed tens of thousands of bank records and loan
documents, conducted thirteen depositions, and conducted land
records research across more than twenty-five states.  

Fourth, the settlement provides relief to class members and
eliminates the risks of trial. Although success at trial could have
yielded treble damages, class members faced a risk of not being
able to recover any potential judgment, as previously noted. Fifth,
class counsel and class representatives find the settlement to be
fair and favorable, which weighs in favor of approval. Sixth, there
have been no objections to the settlement, and one exclusion
request has been submitted by Dean and Dolores Bakken. The class
members on 5,289 out of 5,290 class loans have sought to
participate in the settlement, which the Court interprets as
demonstrating satisfaction among class members. Thus, factors four,
five, and six weigh in favor of approval.

Finally, seventh, the settlement serves the public interest by
ensuring a real recovery to the maximum number of affected
consumers, conserving resources of the parties and the Court,
eliminating the risk of non-recovery, and protecting consumers from
the harm of unnecessarily high settlement charges and abusive
practices. This factor, too, weighs in favor of approval.

In all, the Court is satisfied that the settlement is certainly
fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8yy8omr from Leagle.com.

Edward J. Fangman, Vickie Fangman, Damon M. Oliver, Betty M.
Howard, Clayton J. Anthony, Janice M. Manuel, Eric L. Haynes,
Joseph J. Quinn, Deloris F. Woods, Jameson Cooper, Katherine
Cooper, Geraldine R. Walters, Rose A. Lease, James Pipp, Dana Pipp,
Lawrence Crupi, Concetta Crupi, Charles Milburn, Frank Cherry,
Sammie Cherry, Helen L. Householder, Barbara J. Boyd, Preston
Johnson, Beatrice Johnson, Gerald Jones, Ann Jones, John Mahoney,
Tinna Mahoney, Patricia Gibson, Bruce Eisenstein, Margaret
Eisenstein, Claude Monegeon, Carol J. Shaw, Lusetha Rolle, Patricia
M. Marshall, Ruby B. Coggins, John H. Reinheimer, Jamie B.
Reinheimer, Jill Monegeon & Gerald F. Coggins, Plaintiffs,
represented by Gregory Michael Utter -- gmutter@kmklaw.com --
Keating Muething & Klekamp, Melissa L. English, pro hac vice,
Michael Paul Smith -- mpsmith@sgs-law.com -- Smith Gildea and
Schmidt LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah A. Zadrozny --
szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, pro hac
vice, Timothy Francis Maloney -- tmaloney@jgllaw.com -- Joseph
Greenwald and Laake PA, pro hac vice & Veronica Byam Nannis --
vnannis@jgllaw.com -- Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, pro hac vice.

Emery Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Carolyn Ann
Taggart -- ctaggart@porterwright.com -- Porter Wright Morris &
Arthur, LLP, David M. Souders -- souders@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner
Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Paul Blackwood --
blackwood@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice &
Michael Yaakov Kieval -- kieval@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky
Kider PC, pro hac vice.

Jennifer L McAlpin, Defendant, represented by Gregory Michael
Utter, Keating Muething & Klekamp.


ENSITE USA: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Doyle Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE DOYLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-02941 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 24, 2018) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Doyle was employed by the Defendant as a non exempt
rate employee from June 2015 to August 2015.

EnSiteUSA, Inc. provides project management, engineering, design,
procurement, survey, geographic information system (GIS),
operation, maintenance, and inspection services for transmission,
midstream, and distribution companies in the United States. The
company was formerly known as Energy Management & Services Co. Inc.
and changed its name to EnSiteUSA, Inc. in August 2014. The company
was founded in 1989 and is based in Versailles, Kentucky with
additional offices in offices located in Houston, Texas; Lexington,
Kentucky, Charleston, Wyoming; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Bay City,
Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

             - and -

          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788


ETHOS GALLERY: Illegally Appropriates Tips, Hernandez Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ETHOS GALLERY 51 LLC (D/B/A ETHOS GALLERY 51), IOANNIS
CHATIRIS, and CHRISTOS PANAGIOTOPOULOS, Case No. 1:18-cv-08675
(S.D.N.Y., September 21, 2018), alleges that the Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating the
Plaintiff's and other tipped employees' tips and made unlawful
deductions from his and others' wages.

Mr. Hernandez brings this action for alleged unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law.

Ethos Gallery 51 LLC is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York.  The Individual
Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or
agents of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Greek Restaurant, located
at 905 1st Avenue, in New York City, under the name "Ethos Gallery
51."  The Restaurant is located in the Midtown East section of
Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


FAIR COLLECTIONS: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Montfort Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE MONTFORT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FAIR COLLECTIONS AND OUTSOURCING, INC. and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 0:18-cv-62262-UU (S.D. Fla., September 23,
2018), alleges that the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and
unfair debt collection practices have damaged the Plaintiff and
others.

FCO is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined and used in the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act with an address in Beltsville,
Maryland.  FCO is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and
facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose
of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.
The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (754) 217-3084
          Facsimile: (954) 272-7807
          E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


FORD MOTOR: Ct. Won't Certify Class of Female Plant Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case captioned CHRISTIE VAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 14-cv-8708.
(N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all present and former
female employees who worked at the Assembly Plant or the Stamping
Plant. The allegations before the Court if proven at
trial—indicate that the Plaintiffs and other members of the
putative class have been subjected to a pervasively sexual,
hostile, intimidating, and abusive work environment at Defendant's
Plants.

Rule 23(a) provides that a named party may sue on behalf of
individuals who are similarly situated if: (1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all putative class members is
impracticable (numerosity), (2) there are questions of law or fact
common to the putative class (commonality), (3) the claims or
defenses of the named party are typical of the claims or defenses
of the putative class members (typicality) and (4) the named party
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class
(adequacy).   

Rule 23(b)(3) permits class certification if: (1) questions of law
or fact common to the members of the proposed class predominate
over questions affecting only individual class members
(predominance) and (2) a class action is superior to other
available methods of resolving the controversy (superiority).

The parties do not dispute that Plaintiffs' proposed class
satisfies Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement or Rule 23's implicit
ascertainability requirement.

The Defendant argues, however, that the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy
Rule 23(a)'s commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy Rule
23(a)(4)'s adequacy requirement because (1) class counsel is not
sufficiently experienced or competent, (2) the class is permeated
with conflicts of interest, and (3) Plaintiffs seek relief that
merely duplicates a remedy already available to the putative class.
The Court agrees that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the
adequacy of class counsel. Thus, the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is denied without prejudice on that basis.

The Plaintiffs' lead counsel Keith L. Hunt has been approved as
class counsel in just one federal class action, which resulted in
disciplinary sanctions from the Illinois Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Committee (Illinois ARDC) and malpractice suits by his
clients. In Warnell v. Ford Motor Co., 205 F.Supp.2d 956, 957-58
(N.D. Ill. 2002), the only federal class action in which Mr. Hunt
has been found adequate to serve as class counsel another judge in
this district preliminarily approved a class-wide settlement of
sexual harassment claims by female employees at the same facilities
at issue in this case.

With respect to the Plaintiffs request for certification pursuant
to Rule 23(b)(3), the Plaintiffs do not sufficiently address the
predominance requirement, which requires that that the questions of
law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members. The predominance inquiry tests
whether the proposed class is sufficiently cohesive to warrant
adjudication by representation. Plaintiffs satisfy the predominance
requirement only if they can show that common questions represent a
significant aspect of a case and can be resolved for all members of
a class in a single adjudication.

The Plaintiffs recognize that analysis of the predominance
requirement begins with the elements of the cause of action, but
Plaintiffs do not discuss the elements of their Title VII hostile
work environment claim in their analysis of the predominance
requirement.

In order to establish a prima facie case of hostile work
environment based on sexual harassment under Title VII, the
plaintiff must allege (i) she was subjected to unwelcome sexual
harassment; (ii) the harassment was based on her sex; (iii) the
sexual harassment unreasonably interfered with her work performance
by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment
that affected the psychological well-being of the plaintiff; and
(iv) there is a basis for employer liability. Should Plaintiffs
file a subsequent motion for class certification, they should
address to what extent these elements can be decided on a
class-wide basis.

Typicality is meant to ensure that the claims of the class
representatives have the same essential characteristics as the
claims of the class at large.

Courts therefore have found that Rule 23(a)'s typicality
requirement can be satisfied despite the fact that the Plaintiffs
and putative class members were not exposed to the exact same
misconduct. Still, the facts before the Court indicate a wide-range
of exposure to alleged misconduct. The Court recognizes that the
allegations advanced by Plaintiffs include that many Plaintiffs
were subjected to egregious sexual harassment, including repeated
sexual assault and even rape.

The Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently address these factual
variances. Instead, Plaintiffs' typicality argument appears to be
premised on the assumption that the sexually hostile work
environment claim requires a purely objective standard. That is not
the case.

Accordingly, the Court questions whether given the wide-range of
exposure to misconduct Plaintiffs claims can be typical of the
claims of putative class members.  

In sum, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not met their
burden of establishing the adequacy of class counsel. The Court
defers consideration of whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
remaining requirements of Rule 23. Although the Court has
identified concerns regarding whether the Plaintiffs can satisfy
the remaining Rule 23 requirements, nothing in this order should be
construed to limit the parties' arguments as to those requirements
in any subsequent motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9hf4ta7 from Leagle.com.

Helen Allen, Charmella Leviege, Maria Price, Christie Van,
Jacqueline Barron, Theresa Bosan, Shranda Campbell, Keturah Carter,
Michelle Dahn, Tonya Exum, Jeannette Gardner, Arlene Goforth,
Christine Harris, Orissa Henry, Lawanda Jordan, Danielle Kudirka,
Terri Lewis-Bledsoe, Constance Madison, Cephani Miller, Miyoshi
Morris, Stephanie Szot, Shirley Thomas-Moore, Rose Thomas, Toni
Williams, Bernadette Clyburn, Angela Glenn, Ladwyna Hoover,
Latricia Shanklin, Antoinette Sullivan, Derricka Thomas & Nichea
Walls, Plaintiffs, represented by Keith L. Hunt --
khunt@huntassoclaw.com -- Keith L. Hunt & Associates, P.C., Antonio
Maurizio Romanucci -- amr@rblaw.net -- Romanucci & Blandin, LLC,
Bhavani Keeran Raveendran -- aromanucci@rblaw.net -- Romanucci &
Blandin Llc, Bradley Edwin Faber, Hunt & Associates, P.C., Bryce
Thomas Hensley -- bhensley@rblaw.net -- Romanucci & Blandin, Llc,
Nicolette A. Ward , Romanucci & Blandin, Llc & Stephan David
Blandin, Romanucci & Blandin.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Kathleen M. Nemechek
-- KNEMECHEK@BERKOWITZOLIVER.COM -- Berkowitz Oliver LLP, Timothy
Scott Millman -- TMILLMAN@BERKOWITZOLIVER.COM -- Berkowitz Oliver
LLP, Andrea Ruth Lucas -- alucas@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene Scalia -- escalia@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Llp, pro hac vice, Jocelyn A. Villanueva
-- JVILLANUEVA@BERKOWITZOLIVER.COM -- Berkowitz Oliver LLP, Karen
Kies DeGrand -- karen.degrand@dbmslaw.com -- Donohue, Brown,
Mathewson & Smyth LLC, Katherine V.A. Smith --
ksmith@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice,
Mark Howard Boyle -- mark.boyle@dbmslaw.com -- Donohue, Brown,
Mathewson & Smyth, Matthew D. Anderson -- anderson@dbmslaw.com --
Dononue Brown Mathewson & Smyth, Meagan Pearl Vanderweele --
vanderweele@dbmslaw.com -- Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth Llc,
Molly T. Senger -- msenger@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher Llp, pro hac vice, Naima Lillian Farrell --
nfarrell@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice, Nicholas Lee Divita, Berkowitz Oliver Llp, Stephen M.
Bledsoe, Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt LLP & Timothy
R. West, Berkowitz Oliver LLP, pro hac vice.


FRIENDS FIRST: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Berry Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER BERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRIENDS FIRST, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-00632-JM (E.D. Ark., Sept. 5, 2018) is an action for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs as a
result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Ms. Berry was employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid employee
from August 2017 to April 2018.

Friends First, LLC conducts business within the State of Arkansas
operating several pizza delivery establishments under the name
Domino's Pizza. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


FSC CORPORATION: Bolanos Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS BOLANOS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs FSC CORPORATION DBA IL PASTAIO RESTAURANT, a
California corporation, CELESTINO DRAGO, an individual, GIACOMINO
DRAGO, an individual, and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC722753 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2018), contends that
the Defendants failed to authorize or permit the required meal and
rest periods to their employees as provided by the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees would work on workdays in shifts long enough to entitle
them to both first and second meal periods under California law.
Despite the fact that California law requires employers to provide
employees with a duty-free meal period when an employee's work
shift is a minimum of five hours, the Defendants employed a policy
and procedure that failed to provide for a full 30-minute first
meal period for each five hours of work in strict accordance to
California law. The Defendants failed to pay premium wages to
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to compensate them for
each workday the employees did not receive all legally required
duty-free meal periods.  The Defendants employed policies and
procedures which ensured employees did not receive any premium
wages to compensate them for the workdays in which they did not 6
receive all legally required meal periods.

FSC Corporation is a financial services firm that provides
mortgage, refinance, consolidate debt, and credit analysis
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Luis Bolanos, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated:

Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
David Watson, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
433 N. Camden Dr., Ste. 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496 4818
Facsimile: (310) 510 6429
E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
        zach@crosnerlegal.com
        david@crosnerlegal.com


FUSION LOGISTICS: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Ortega Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIMONE ORTEGA, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. FUSION LOGISTICS, INC. and PEI OHIO, INC.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02512-S (N.D. Tex., September 21, 2018), accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing
to pay the Plaintiff and others overtime wages.

Fusion Logistics, Inc., is a for-profit, Florida corporation
providing courier/delivery services.

PEI Ohio, Inc., is a for-profit, Ohio corporation.  PEI processed
payroll and performed human resources functions for Fusion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


GATEWAY HOUSING: Garcia Sues Over Construction Defect
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gateway Housing LLC
for construction defect.

The case is styled as Gerardo M. Garcia on his own behalf and as an
individual homeowners class representative on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Maria D. Ayala, Maria Baltazar, Nancy Barrios,
Oscar Barrios, Ricardo Carmona, Martha Castro, Diana Castruita,
Constantino Del Rio Chavez, Luis Contreras, Juan R. Cortez, Kennedy
Donaldson, Rigo Dominguez, Viridiana Escobar-Grana, Rosa Espinoza,
Angel Fabian, Zulema Arambula, Bryan Felix, Eduardo Flores, Irene
Molina, Alejandro Galvan, Honorio Gutierrez, Rudy Hernandez, David
A.R. Hernandez, Stanley Lee Jackson, Estevan Lepe, Gloria Lepe,
Vanessa Lizarraga, Javier R. Lopez, Isidro Sosa Lopez, Albert
Lopez, Jaime R. Lopez, Mayra Quinonez, Francisco Lopez, Jr., Tracy
Lopez, Carmen Marquez, Javier Martinez, Arnaldo Martinez, Joanna
Villa, Israel Monroy, Jose Montoya, Robert K. Morales, Cesar C.
Moreno, Nancy Moreno, Abdul Moshin, Matthew Mundhenke, Savanna
Ochoa, Emmanuel Etiosa Osaseri, Victor Palacios, Saudith A.C.
Penaloza, Andrew Pinales, Rodolfo D. Quinonez, Esperanza R. Baez,
Erick Ramirez, Rigoberto Reyes, David Reyna, Ana Martinez, Mario
Rodriquez, Jose Gerardo Rodriquez, Romo Rodriquez, Jose Sanchez,
Carmen inzunza, Jaime Sanchez, Maricela Estrada, Peter Serna,
Judith Serna, Fabiola Serrano, Salvio R. Sosa, Rivelino Tapia, Elva
Tapia, Leticia M. De Torres, Joel T. De Torres, Isidro Torres,
Jesus Estela Urena, Luz Estela Urena, Plaintiffs v. Gateway Housing
LLC, a California limited liability company, Oriole Homes, Inc., a
California Corporation, Defendants, Case No. BCV-18-102478 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 2, 2018).

Judge Thomas S. Clark has set a case management conference for
April 2, 2019.

Gateway Housing LP operates as a subsidiary of Corporations for
Affordable Housing LP II. It is located at 18101 Von Karman Avenue,
Suite 1700, Irvine, CA 92612-1046, United States.

Oriole Homes Corp. as of September 3, 2008, went out of business.
Oriole Homes Corp. builds and sells single-family homes, patio
homes, townhomes, villas, duplexes, and low and mid-rise
condominiums, principally in southeast and central Florida. The
company sells its homes primarily through commissioned employees
who typically work in model sales centers or from offices located
in model homes in the communities.[BN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Reply Due Oct. 24 in Marro Sup. Ct. Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Response is due on October 24, 2018, with respect to the petition
for a writ of certiorari filed by Donald C. Marro in the lawsuit
entitled Donald C. Marro v. New York State Teachers' Retirement
System, Case No. 18-381, in the Supreme Court of the United
States.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Movant Donald
C. Marro filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
titled New York State Teachers' Retirement System v. General Motors
Company, et al., Case No. 14-cv-11191, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint.  The appellate case
is captioned as New York State Teachers' Retirement System v.
General Motors Company, et al., Case No. 16-1821, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Action was brought by investors alleging, among other things,
that the Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements and omitting material information
about GM's product warranty and recall liabilities, internal
controls and commitment to safety.

Lead Plaintiff New York State Teachers' Retirement System, on
behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, achieved a settlement of
the Action for $300 million in cash resolving all claims in the
Action.  The Settlement Class consists of: all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired General Motors Company ("GM")
common stock during the period from November 17, 2010 through July
24, 2014, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

Movant-Petitioner Donald C. Marro, of The Plains, Virginia, appears
pro se.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent New York State Teachers' Retirement System is
represented by:

          Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: Salvatore@blbglaw.com

Defendants, General Motors Company, et al., are represented by:

          Robert J. Kopecky, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2084
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: rkopecky@kirkland.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Green, et al. Sue over Reinsurance Termination
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD F. BURKHART, WILLIAM E. KELLY, RICHARD S. LAVERY, THOMAS R.
PRATT, GERALD GREEN, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GENWORTH FINANCIAL,
INC., GENWORTH HOLDINGS, INC., GENWORTH NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
GENWORTH FINANCIAL INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LLC AND GENWORTH LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-0691, (Del.
Chancery Ct., Sept. 21, 2018), challenges a deliberate, long-term
scheme by the Defendant, an insurance holding company, and by its
affiliated defendants, to bleed capital from GLIC, a wholly-owned
insurance subsidiary of Genworth upon which over a million
policyholders depend for long-term care insurance benefits in the
event that they become disabled. This conduct has profoundly harmed
and will continue to harm GLIC policyholders and the agents through
whom such policyholders purchased insurance. Absent injunctive and
other equitable relief, Defendants' conduct will leave the
policyholders at critical risk at the point in their lives when
they have greatest need for the benefits provided by the policies.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to require the Defendants to unwind
the so-called reinsurance termination and restore to GLIC from
Genworth, Holdings, and GFIH all of the value fraudulently
transferred from GLIC in the Reinsurance Termination.

Genworth is a publicly owned insurance holding company.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          3801 Kennett Pike
          Building C, Suite 305
          Wilmington, DE  19807
          Telephone: (302) 504 4957
          Facsimile: (302) 397 2681

               - and -

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Thomas V. Urmy, Jr., Esq.
          Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Seaport East
          Two Seaport Lane
          Boston, MA  02210
          Telephone: (617) 439 3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439 0134



GOLD'S GYM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Frank and Cowette Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL FRANK; and DANIELLE COWETTE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLD'S GYM OF AIKEN,
SOUTH CAROLINA; GOLD'S GYM OF NORTH AUGUSTA, SOUTH CAROLINA; GOLD'S
GYM OF AUGUSTA, GEORGIA; GOLD'S GYM OF AUGUSTA, GEORGIA; and GOLD'S
GYM OF EVANS, GEORGIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02452-CMC
(D.S.C., Sept. 5, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited calls.

Gold's Gym operates as a fitness and recreational center. The
Company offers weight lost, muscle building, cardio improvement,
strength increase, increased endurance, increased flexibility, and
overall health services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penny Hays Cauley, Esq.
          HAYS CAULEY, P.C.
          1303 W. Evans Street
          Florence, SC 29501
          Telephone: (843) 665-1717
          E-mail: Phc917@hayscauley.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com


GOLDEN FLOWERS: Ulrich Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ULRICH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. GOLDEN FLOWERS, INC., a Florida corporation, the
Defendant, Case No.: 1:18-cv-23913-DPG (S.D. Fla., Sept. 21, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brought this collective action on behalf of himself
and other current and former employees of the Defendant similarly
situated to him who were denied overtime wages in violation of the
FLSA in the three-year period prior to the filing of this
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an inside sales
representative from on or about May 16, 2016, to August 3, 2018.
The Plaintiff's position was not exempt from the FLSA's overtime
requirements, as it was not an outside sales position and did not
meet the criteria for the exemption for commissioned employees of
retail or service establishments.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received an annual salary
of $40,000 plus commissions. The Plaintiff's salary was intended to
cover a 40-hour workweek. However, the Plaintiff regularly worked
about 45 hours per week, except in the three-week periods before
Valentine's Day and Mother's Day, when he worked about 61 hours per
week. The Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay overtime
wages to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant is a wholesale distributor of fresh-cut flowers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark J. Beutler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. BEUTLER, P.A.
          One Datran Center
          9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (786) 497 7710
          Facsimile: (786) 513 4651
          E-mail: mjb@mjbpa.com

               - and -

          Richard D. Tuschman, Esq.
          RICHARD D. TUSCHMAN, P.A.
          8551 W. Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 303
          Plantation, FL  33322
          Telephone: (954) 369 1050
          Facsimile: (954) 380 8938
          E-mail: rtuschman@gtemploymentlawyers.com
                  assistant@gtemploymentlawyers.com


GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Class Cert. Denial in Murphy Suit Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants David Carroll, Pat Emerick, Gospel for ASIA -
International, Gospel for ASIA, Inc., Daniel Punnose, Gisela
Punnose and K.P. Yohannan filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Garland Murphy, III, et al. v. Gospel for ASIA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-05035-TLB, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 28, 2018, the
District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class
Action.

GFA is a Christian missionary organization operating in South Asia,
mainly in India.  To fulfill its charitable purposes, GFA solicits
donations from donors across the world.  Each year, according to
the Complaint, over one million unique donations are made to GFA
from tens of thousands of donors in the United States alone.

This lawsuit centers on the Plaintiffs' claims that, despite these
numerous representations, GFA did not, in fact, spend the donated
and designated money in accordance with the donors' wishes or with
GFA's representations.  All told throughout the proposed class
period, the parties agree that approximately $375 million in
donations are at issue. The Plaintiffs have asserted a number of
causes of action against GFA, including Civil Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, and an
Arkansas-specific claim under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Garland Murphy, III, et al. v.
Gospel for ASIA, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-8012, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Garland D. Murphy, III, M.D., and Phyllis
Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Woodson William Bassett, III, Esq.
          James M. Graves, Esq.
          BASSETT LAW FIRM
          221 N. College
          P.O. Box 3618
          Fayetteville, AR 72702-3618
          Telephone: (479) 521-9996
          E-mail: wbassett@bassettlawfirm.com
                  jgraves@bassettlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas W. Mills, Jr., Esq.
          MILLS & WILLIAMS LLP
          5910 N. Central Expressway, Suite 980
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 265-9265
          E-mail: tmills@millsandwilliams.com

               - and -

          Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
          Martin Woodward, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75206-0000
          Telephone: (214) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (214) 443-0358
          E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
                  mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com

Defendants-Petitioners Gospel for ASIA, Inc., Gospel for ASIA -
International, K.P. Yohannan, Gisela Punnose, Daniel Punnose, David
Carroll and Pat Emerick are represented by:

          John T. Adams, Esq.
          Steven Shults, Esq.
          SHULTS & ADAMS LLP
          200 W. Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72023
          Telephone: (501) 375-2301
          Facsimile: (501) 375-6861
          E-mail: jadams@shultslaw.com
                  sshults@shultslaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew H. Davis, Esq.
          Harriet E. Miers, Esq.
          Robert T. Mowrey, Esq.
          Paul Featherstone Schuster, Esq.
          Cynthia Keely Timms, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201-6776
          Telephone: (214) 740-8000
          Facsimile: (214) 740-8800
          E-mail: mdavis@lockelord.com
                  hmiers@lockelord.com
                  rmowrey@lockelord.com
                  pschuster@lockelord.com
                  ctimms@lockelord.com


GRAY TELEVISION: Holmen Locker Suit Asserts Antitrust Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOLMEN LOCKER & MEAT MARKET, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; HEARST
CORPORATION; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE MEDIA
COMPANY; and SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-06460
(N.D. Ill., September 21, 2018), arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful conspiracy to artificially inflate the prices of
purchasing television advertisements, in violation of antitrust
laws.

Gray Television, Inc., is a television broadcast company
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  Gray owns and/or operates
television stations and related assets in the United States.  Gray
owns or operates over 100 stations across the United States,
primarily in small and medium sized markets.

Hearst Corporation, headquartered in New York City, is a
diversified media and information company that wholly owns, among
others, Hearst Communications, which holds significant ownership
stakes in major media companies that own television channels, such
as A&E Networks, ESPN Inc., and Hearst Television.  Hearst operates
television stations and cable networks throughout the United
States.

Headquartered in Irving, Texas, Nexstar Media Group is a
telecommunications company in the United States.  Nexstar owns or
operates over 170 television stations, many of whom are affiliates
with the four "major" U.S. television networks -- ABC, CBS, NBC,
and Fox -- in small and medium sized markets across the United
States.

Tegna Inc. is a broadcast, digital media, and marketing services
company headquartered in McLean, Virginia.  Tegna owns or operates
47 television stations in 39 markets across the United States, is
the largest group owner of stations affiliated with NBC and CBS,
and the fourth-largest group owner of stations affiliated with
ABC.

Tribune Media Company, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is a
media and entertainment conglomerate in the United States.  Through
its Tribune Broadcasting subsidiary, Tribune owns or operates over
40 broadcast television stations in approximately 35 cities across
the United States, as well as cable television networks and
national digital subchannel networks.

Sinclair Broadcast Group., Inc., headquartered in Hunt Valley,
Maryland, is a telecommunications conglomerate in the United
States.  Sinclair is the largest television station operator in the
United States by number of stations and by total coverage.
Sinclair owns or operates over 190 local television stations in
over 100 markets in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Bethany R. Turke, Esq.
          Justin N. Boley, Esq.
          WEXLERWALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  brt@wexlerwallace.com
                  jnb@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steve N. Williams, Esq.
          Jiamin Chen, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  jchen@saverilawfirm.com


GRAY TELEVISION: Manipulated Prices for TV Commercials, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOGLUND, CHWIALKOWSKI & MROZIK, P.L.L.C., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; HEARST
CORPORATION; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE MEDIA
COMPANY; and SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-06463
(N.D. Ill., September 21, 2018), is an antitrust action brought
under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

The action concerns the alleged illegal and anticompetitive
practices of the Defendants, who engaged in unlawful collusion and
conspired to artificially inflate the price of purchasing local
television advertisements.

Gray Television, Inc., is a television broadcast company
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  Gray owns and operates
television stations and digital assets in the United States.

Headquartered in New York City, Hearst Corporation is a diversified
media and information company.  Hearst Corporation, via its wholly
owned subsidiary Hearst Television Inc., owns and operates 29 local
television stations and two local radio stations, serving 30 cities
throughout the United States.

Nexstar Media Group, headquartered in Irving, Texas, operates as a
television broadcasting and digital media company in the United
States.  As of December 31, 2017, Nexstar owned, operated,
programmed, or provided sales and other services to 170 television
stations in 100 markets.

Tegna, Inc., is a broadcasting, digital media, and marketing
services company headquartered in McLean, Virginia.  Tegna owns and
operates 47 television stations in 39 markets across the United
States.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Tribune Media Company operates through
its subsidiaries as a media and entertainment company in the United
States.  Tribune owns 43 broadcast television stations in
approximately 35 cities.

Sinclair Broadcast Group., Inc., headquartered in Hunt Valley,
Maryland, operates as a television broadcast company in the United
States.  As of December 31, 2017, it owned, operated, and/or
provided services to 191 stations in 89 markets, which broadcast
601 channels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1256
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Brant D. Penney, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          332 Minnesota St., Suite W1050
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  b.penney@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 551-9175
          Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
                  bhollowell@karonllc.com


GREEN MOUNTAIN: City Plating Sues Over Unwanted Fax Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
CITY PLATING AND POLISHING, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GREEN MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY LLC, a New Hampshire limited
liability company, Case No. 1:18-cv-02168 (N.D. Ohio, September 21,
2018), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991 to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of sending
unauthorized and unwanted fax advertisements, and obtain redress
for all persons and entities injured by its conduct.

Green Mountain is a New Hampshire limited liability company.  Green
Mountain is a national company that markets and sells pallet
racking and other storage and material handling products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam T. Savett, Esq.
          SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
          2764 Carole Lane
          Allentown, PA 18104
          Telephone: (610) 621-4550
          Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
          E-mail: adam@savettlaw.com


HALAL OR NOTHING: White Seeks Unpaid Overtime under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
MYISHA WHITE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HALAL OR
NOTHING GROUP 7, LLC, a California limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC722760
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2018), alleges that the Defendants
failed to pay overtime wage and meal period premiums under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants directly hired and paid
wages and benefits to Plaintiff and the other class members. The
Defendants continue to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
within the Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight
hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment
with the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California.
This pattern and practice involved failing to pay them for all
regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods
and rest breaks in violation of California law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Aguilar Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fausto Aguilar individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., a Connecticut corporation,
and Does 1-100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC717334, was
removed from the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles) on Sept. 19, 2018.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-08123-R-AGR to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Manuel L. Real.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., usually known as The
Hartford, is a United States-based investment and insurance
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S Kabateck, Esq.
          Christopher B Noyes, Esq.
          Joana Fang, Esq.
          Stephanie E Charlin, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          633 West 5th Street Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 217 5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217 5010
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
                  cn@kbklawyers.com
                  jf@kbklawyers.com
                  sc@kbklawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jan P Levine, Esq.
          Tambry L Bradford, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          3000 Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Steets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103 2799
          Telephone: (215) 981 4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981 4750
          E-mail: levinej@pepperlaw.com
          bradfordt@pepperlaw.com

HEALTH NET: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Cisneros Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARMELA CISNEROS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs CENTENE CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; HEALTH NET FEDERAL SERVICES, LLC, a limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No.:37-2018-00047894-CU-OE-CTL (C.D. Cal., Sept.
21, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to:

     -- pay minimum and straight time wages,
     -- pay overtime and double-time compensation,
     -- provide meal periods,
     -- authorize and permit rest breaks,
     -- timely pay final wages at termination, and
     -- provide accurate itemized wage statements,

under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
in San Diego County, California, as a clerical specialist from July
2006 to March 2018.  The Defendants classified the Plaintiff as
non-exempt from California's overtime requirements.  During the
statutory time period, the Plaintiff typically worked 5 to 6 days
in a workweek, and typically between 8 to 9 hours in a workday, and
over 40 hours in a workweek.  Throughout the statutory period, the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of not paying Plaintiff
and the Class for all hours worked, including all overtime wages,
case says.

Health Net provides managed health care programs for the government
agencies.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA  90017
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglavv.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
                  alien.feghali@inoonyanglaw.com


HIGHLAND CAPITAL: Lanotte Sues over Mismanagement of Trust Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN LANOTTE, derivatively on behalf of HIGHLAND GLOBAL ALLOCATION
FUND, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT FUND ADVISORS, L.P.; TIMOTHY HUI; BRYAN
WARD; BOB FROEHLICH; JOHN HONIS; ETHAN POWELL, HIGHLAND GLOBAL
ALLOCATION FUND, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02360-M (N.D. Tex.,
Sept. 5, 2018) seeks to recover damages against the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs and the class, and for
the Defendants' breach of the advisory agreement to properly manage
the Highland Global Allocation Fund.

According to the complaint, Defendant Highland Capital manages the
investments of a series of mutual funds of the Trust, including the
Global Allocation Fund and the Highland Energy MLP Fund, and the
trustees of the Trust owe fiduciary obligations to the Global
Allocation Fund and the MLP Fund. The trustees allowed Highland
Capital to use the Global Allocation Fund to buy shares in the MLP
Fund to save the MLP Fund from collapsing and stem the losses
incurred by Highland Capital when oil prices dropped and the MLP
Fund plummeted in value.

The Defendant Highland Capital's use of the Global Allocation Fund
to purchase MLP Fund shares, violated the terms of the its contract
with the Global Allocation Fund. By allowing Highland Capital to
use the Global Allocation Fund to prop up the MLP Fund, the
trustees of the Global Allocation Fund violated their fiduciary
obligations owed to the Global Allocation Fund and its
shareholders. The trustees of the Global Allocation Fund are
conflicted because they are also trustees of the MLP Fund that
benefitted from the related-party transactions and were paid fees
for serving as trustees of the MLP Fund.

Highland Capital Management Fund Advisors, L.P. is an employee
owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides it services
to investment companies. The Company was formerly known as Pyxis
Capital, L.P. Highland Capital Management Fund Advisors, L.P. is
based in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
          12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387-4040
          Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
          E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com

               - and -

          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Meagan A. Farmer, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          E-mail: jnotis@gardylaw.com
                  mfarmer@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Jon T. Pearson, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-622-7000
          E-mail: mbarry@gelaw.com
                  jpearson@gelaw.com


HOBBY LOBBY: Court to Narrow Claims in Phillips Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge John E. Ott of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division,
issued a Memorandum Opinion in the case captioned DAVID PHILLIPS,
ROBIN L. BROWNING as the EXECUTOR of the ESTATE OF DIANE BROWNING,
MARY E. CARRARA, and WENDY CALMA, individually and on behalf of a
class of persons, Plaintiffs, v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.,
Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-00837-JEO. (N.D. Ala.).

The case is now before the court on two motions for summary
judgment filed by Hobby Lobby: (1) motion for summary judgment on
Mary Carrara's claims for statutory and injunctive relief under the
ICFA and IDTPA, and (2) motion for summary judgment on both
Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and the Estate's claims
for statutory and injunctive relief under the ADTPA.

This is a putative class action brought by the Estate of Diane
Browning and Mary Carrara against retailer Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
The case concerns the manner in which Hobby Lobby administers a
weekly coupon offering 40% Off One Item at Regular Price.  On all
purchases, Hobby Lobby applied the 40% off coupon to the marked
price rather than the 30% off price. In their Fourth Amended
Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that this practice constitutes breach
of contract and violates the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(ADTPA) and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) and Illinois
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (IDTPA).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

There are three claims in Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint: a
claim by both Plaintiffs for breach of contract (Count I), a claim
by the Estate for violation of the ADTPA (Count II) and a claim by
Mary Carrara for violation of the ICFA and IDTPA (Count III).

Breach of Contract

The Plaintiffs' first claim is for breach of contract. Under both
Alabama and Illinois law, the first element of a claim for breach
of contract is a valid contract binding both parties.  
Here, the parties agree a contract was formed when Diane Browning
and Mary Carrara purchased their merchandise from Hobby Lobby using
a 40% off coupon. They disagree, however, on whether there was a
mutual assent to the contract terms. Hobby Lobby argues that
Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their breach of contract claim because
their actions manifested assent to a contract based on Hobby
Lobby's position the regular price of an item is the Marked Price
and the coupon [cannot] be used to obtain an additional 40%
discount on items that are always discounted by 30%. Plaintiffs
respond that there is a dispute as to just what they assented to
and that this dispute precludes summary judgment. The court
disagrees with Plaintiffs.

Here, the core thesis of the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim
is that they never assented to Hobby Lobby's position on the
coupon's terms. Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that they
never assented to Hobby Lobby's position that the regular price of
an item is the item's marked price. Instead they contend the
regular price of the item is the price for which the item is
always" sold, the 30% off price. Their conduct, however, tells a
different story. It is undisputed that each time Diane Browning and
Mary Carrara presented a 40% off coupon to purchase an item that
was always discounted by 30%, Hobby Lobby applied the coupon to the
item's marked price; Mrs. Browning and Mrs. Carrara voluntarily
paid the price they were charged without objection; and they were
given a receipt showing exactly what they paid and how the price
was calculated. Each receipt confirmed that the 40% coupon discount
had been deducted from the marked price. By paying the price
reflected on the receipt, Mrs. Carrara and Mrs. Browning evidenced
their outward, objective manifestation of assent to the price Hobby
Lobby charged.  

In sum, Diane Browning and Mary Carrara voluntarily paid the price
they were charged by Hobby Lobby for their merchandise, they were
given receipts showing exactly what they paid and how the price was
computed, and they never complained to store personnel about the
amount they paid or how their coupon was applied. In addition, they
never returned any of their merchandise to Hobby Lobby for a
refund. Consequently, Plaintiffs cannot show that Hobby Lobby
breached any contract.

Summary judgment is due to be granted on their claims for breach of
contract.

The Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act

The Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), is a consumer
protection statute designed to punish persons who engage in
deceptive trade practices. As relevant here, the ADTPA provides
that it is unlawful for a seller to make a false or misleading
statement of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or
amounts of, price reductions.

Here, there is a question of fact as to whether Hobby Lobby made
any false or misleading statements12 to Mrs. Browning that could
give rise to liability under the ADTPA. While the price tags and
advertisements in and of themselves do not contain any false or
misleading statements, the statements therein, when combined with
the statements in the 40% off coupon create a jury question. The
collective use of the marked price, always price and the regular
price necessarily creates confusion on the part of the consumer
that a reasonable juror could conclude equates with a misleading
statement of fact concerning the amount of the price reductions.

The court is not persuaded that the coupon's statement that it is
not valid with any other discount somehow clarifies the coupon's
application. Again, a question of fact exists as to whether the
orange tag stating "Furniture Always 30% Off" necessarily means it
was a discount or if it was the regular price charged for that
piece of furniture. This is especially true when the price on the
orange tag was the only price for which the furniture was sold.
Therefore, the court concludes a question of fact exists as to
whether Hobby Lobby made any false or misleading statement to Mrs.
Browning that could support a claim for violation of the ADPTA.
Summary judgment is due to be denied as to the Estate's ADTPA claim
for statutory relief.

The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts

ICFA

Mary Carrara brings a similar claim under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act. She alleges that, when she purchased fabric items marked
Always X% Off" and presented a 40% off coupon at the time of her
purchase, Hobby Lobby violated the ICFA by applying the coupon
discount to the higher price displayed on the item the marked
price, rather than the lower Always price.   Hobby Lobby has moved
for summary judgment on this claim as well.

To prevail under the ICFA, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) the
defendant engaged in a deceptive act or practice; (2) the defendant
intended that the plaintiff rely on the deception; (3) the
deception occurred in the course of trade and commerce; (4) actual
damage to the plaintiff occurred; and (5) the damage was
proximately caused by the deception. Hobby Lobby argues that Mrs.
Carrara cannot establish several of these elements.  

Here, the totality of information available to Mrs. Carrara dooms
her ICFA claim. Although the same coupon was used with regard to
the fabric purchased by Mrs. Carrara as was used by Mrs. Browning,
there is one key difference the fabric ticket. At the top of the
fabric ticket, there were three columns: yards, regular price, and
total. The section relating to the sale and clearance fabrics
contained four columns: yards, regular price, reduced price, and
total. It is undisputed that the fabric ticket given to Ms. Carrara
before she purchased fabric marked at Always 30% Off listed the
marked price under the column labeled regular price on the ticket.


This fact eliminates the possibility of deception as a matter of
law.

Other courts applying the ICFA have found no deception under
similar circumstances. As such, Hobby Lobby is entitled to summary
judgment on Mrs. Carrara's ICFA claim.

IDTPA

Along with her ICFA claim, Mrs. Carrara seeks injunctive relief
under the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Under Section 2
of the IDTPA, a person may violate the statute in a number of
explicit ways. The sole remedy for these statutory violations is
injunctive relief plus attorneys' fees.  

The IDTPA was not intended to be a consumer protection statute but,
rather, was intended to prohibit unfair competition among
businesses. A consumer action is possible under the IDTPA, however,
in limited circumstances where a consumer can show that she is
likely to be damaged in the future by a deceptive practice of the
defendant.  

The problem in most consumer actions under the IDTPA is the
inability to allege facts indicating the likelihood of damage in
the future. Where the plaintiff is aware of the alleged deceptive
practice at the time she files suit, as is the case here, courts
have refused to grant injunctive relief because the possibility for
future deception of the plaintiff has ended.  

Ms. Carrara's claim for injunctive relief under the IDTPA fails for
the same reason. She has effectively conceded that she will not be
deceived in the future, because she is presently aware of Hobby
Lobby's practices concerning the application of its 40% off coupon.
Her request for injunctive relief, therefore, fails.

Hobby Lobby's motion for summary judgment against Carrara's
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts claims
is due to be granted. Hobby Lobby's second motion for summary
judgment is due to be granted in part and denied in part.The motion
is due to be granted as it relates to Plaintiffs' claims for breach
of contract and the Estate's claim for injunctive relief under the
ADTPA, but denied as it relates to the Estate's claims for
statutory relief under the ADTPA. A separate order consistent with
this opinion will be entered.

Hobby Lobby's motion for summary judgment against Carrara's
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts claims
is due to be granted. Hobby Lobby's second motion for summary
judgment is due to be granted in part and denied in part. The
motion is due to be granted as it relates to Plaintiffs' claims for
breach of contract and the Estate's claim for injunctive relief
under the ADTPA, but denied as it relates to the Estate's claims
for statutory relief under the ADTPA.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9wnjtgr
from Leagle.com.

Diane Browning, Plaintiff, represented by Brian M. Clark --
bclark@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER &
GOLDFARB & Allan L. Armstrong -- Allan@ArmstrongLawCenter.com --
ARMSTRONG LAW CENTER LLC.

Hobby Lobby Stores Inc, Defendant, represented by Robert H.
Rutherford, Jr. -- rrutherford@burr.com -- BURR & FORMAN LLP.


INNERWORKINGS INC: Continues to Defend Brown Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit entitled, Errol Brown, et al., v. InnerWorkings,
Inc., et al.

In May 2018, shortly following the Company's announcement of its
intention to restate certain historical financial statements, a
putative securities class action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  

The action, Errol Brown, et al., v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et al., is
currently pending before the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  

The complaint alleges claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allegations in the
complaint include that the Company and its current and former
officers and directors made untrue statements or omissions of
material fact by issuing inaccurate financial statements for the
fiscal years ending December 31, 2015, 2016, and 2017, as well as
all interim periods.

The putative class seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages
as well as reimbursement of fees and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other costs.

The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims. On July
27, 2018, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for
the case. Plaintiff's deadline to file an amended complaint is
September 25, 2018.  

InnerWorkings, Inc. provides marketing execution solutions in North
America and internationally. The company's software applications
and databases create an integrated solution that stores, analyzes,
and tracks the production capabilities of its supplier network, as
well as detailed pricing data.


JACKS EGGS: Vargas et al. Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR VARGAS and JOSE MANUEL VARGAS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs JACKS EGGS AND OTHER
INGREDIENTS LLC (D/B/A JACK'S EGG FARM), JACK NEUSTADT, and
MORDECAI NEUSTADT, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05341
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 21, 2018), alleges that Defendants maintained a
policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to
work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum
wage and overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate
record-keeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or  for any additional overtime premium. Further, the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours"
pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. The
Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other
similarly situated employees.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a food products supplier,
located at 130 44th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11232 under the name
"Jack's Egg Farm".The Plaintiffs were employed as truck drivers and
drivers' assistants at the Defendants' distribution center.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES , P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employementcompliance.com


JBS USA: Court Dismisses Phase I Discrimination Pattern & Practice
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order dismisses the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC)'s Phase I Discrimination Pattern and
Practices in the case captioned EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and IRAQ ABADE, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors, and MARYAN ABDULLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. JBS USA, LLC, d/b/a JBS Swift & Company,
Defendant. Civil Action No. 10-cv-02103-PAB-KLM. (D. Colo.).

Phase I of this discrimination case, involving pattern or practice
claims brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Defendant, JBS USA, LLC, d/b/a JBS Swift & Company (JBS),
owns a beef processing facility in Greeley, Colorado (Greeley
plant). The Greeley plant employed several hundred Muslim employees
who sought accommodation from JBS because of their need to pray
during working hours.

Pursuant to the bifurcation order, the Phase I trial addressed
three claims:

   1. That JBS engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawfully
denying Muslim employees reasonable religious accommodations to
pray and break their Ramadan fast.

   2. That JBS engaged in a pattern or practice of disciplining
employees on the basis of their race (black), national origin
(Somali), and religion (Muslim) during Ramadan.  

   3. That JBS engaged in a pattern or practice of retaliating
against a group of black, Muslim, Somali employees for engaging in
protected action in opposition to discrimination during Ramadan.

Muslim Employees' Religious Beliefs

Muslims customarily pray five times per day. Each prayer has a name
corresponding to the time of day it is traditionally said. The Fajr
prayer takes place in the morning, the Dhuhr prayer takes place
near noon, the Asr prayer takes place in the afternoon, the Maghrib
prayer takes place at sunset, and the Isha prayer takes place in
the evening. The precise timing of these prayers is determined by
the motions of the sun and moon. Accordingly, they vary over time
such that, during Ramadan 2008, the prayer time for the Maghrib
prayer moved from 7:30 p.m. on September 1, 2008 to 6:42 p.m. on
September 30, 2008 as the sun set earlier. The Asr prayer moved
from 4:39 p.m. to 4:07 p.m. over the same period. Schedules of the
prayer times are available at mosques, online, and through various
computer applications. The prayer times provided in such schedules
are the earliest that the prayers can be said.

Fasting is another requirement of the Islamic faith. The required
fast takes place during the holy month of Ramadan, the ninth month
of the Islamic lunar calendar. The fast lasts from dawn until
sunset, during which time Muslims must refrain from eating or
drinking. During Ramadan, practicing Muslim employees were required
by their beliefs to fast by not eating or drinking from sunrise to
sunset. At sunset, coincident with the Maghrib prayer, Muslims must
break their fast with food, water, or both. Because Ramadan is the
holy month in Islam, many Muslims, including the Aggrieved
Individuals, generally believe the obligations to fast and pray
during Ramadan have greater or heightened spiritual significance.

Breaks

Pursuant to the CBA in effect in during the relevant period,
production employees were entitled to two regular breaks during
each shift, which were required to occur within certain windows of
time. The CBA called for, first, a fifteen-minute rest period (rest
break) approximately halfway through the first part of the shift,
which could occur no earlier than one and one-half hours from the
start of the shift and no later than three hours from the start of
the shift. Second, the CBA provided for a thirty-minute meal break
approximately halfway through the shift.

Employees were not required to work more than three and one-half
hours without a break unless three and three-quarters hours of work
would complete the workday.

Procedures for Disciplinary Suspension and Discharge

JBS's usual procedure when imposing a disciplinary suspension was
to meet with the employee, explain the reasons for the discipline,
provide the employee with a copy of the disciplinary record, ask
the employee to sign the suspension, and give the employee
instructions about how to find out when to return to work. When JBS
suspended an employee pending investigation, it would generally
conduct an investigation regarding the allegations of wrongdoing.
Similarly, before an employee was discharged, JBS usually talked to
the employee in order to find out the employee's side of the
story.

JBS's Awareness of Prayer Issues Before Ramadan 2008

Notwithstanding the general awareness of Islamic prayer practices,
JBS's managers and supervisors did not anticipate issues arising at
the Greeley plant during Ramadan 2008. No prayer issues arose at
the Greeley plant during Ramadan 2007. Mr. Timejardine, a
non-Somali Muslim supervisor, testified that he did not anticipate
any prayer-related issues before the events of Ramadan 2008. The
union also did not anticipate any Ramadan-related issues in 2008
and was surprised when they arose.

Ramadan 2008

On Friday, September 5, approximately 200 non-Muslim employees
gathered outside the plant before the start of the B shift and
indicated that they refused to work until the meal break was moved
back to its normal time. JBS managers told the employees to select
representatives. They did so and the rest of the employees returned
to work. The non-Muslim employees did not return to the production
floor by the start time for the shift and, as a result, work on the
production floor began late. JBS had to run the chain at reduced
speed. JBS did not attem pt to determine which employees returned
to the line late and none of the employees were disciplined.

That afternoon, JBS management met separately with the Muslim
committee and the non-Muslim employee representatives. Mr.
Rodriquez, the union's director, refused to participate in the
meetings with the Muslim committee, but he did participate in
meetings with the non-Muslim employee representatives where he was
joined by Juan Carlos Gonzalez. The non-Muslim employees' primary
complaint was that a 7:30 p.m. meal break was too early, resulting
in employees becoming tired and hungry, and made the last half of
their shift feel longer. The non-Muslim employee representatives
indicated that they thought the Muslim employees were receiving
preferential treatment. Mr. Ray explained to the non-Muslim
employee committee that the break was being moved in an effort to
accommodate Muslim employees' religious needs.

JBS management then met with the Muslim committee. The Muslim
committee proposed moving the rest break to correspond with sunset
or allowing unscheduled breaks for prayer. The committee offered to
have the Muslim employees punch out for prayer breaks. After
meeting separately with both the Muslim and non-Muslim employee
representatives, JBS decided at approximately 7:10 p.m. to move the
meal break to 8:00 p.m. JBS reached this decision in an effort to
find a compromise between the requests of both groups.

JBS management told the Muslim committee that it needed to inform
the employees that the meal break time had been changed. The Muslim
committee members refused to do so. Committee members said they
would lose face because the company had broken its promise to have
a 7:30 p.m. meal break and they could not face their co-workers.
They also said that there was not enough time to communicate with
the production employees. Ron Gould radioed the plant floor,
ordering that supervisors be posted to inform any employees that
leaving the line at 7:30 p.m. would constitute an unauthorized
break. Some Muslim committee members went to the floor to tell
employees about the change in meal break time.

Not all employees were notified of the change in the meal break
time before 7:30 p.m. At 7:30 p.m., some employees left the line
before the chain stopped, including both Muslim and non-Muslim
employees. JBS management stopped some of the employees attempting
to enter the cafeteria at that time and most, but not all, of those
employees returned to their lines. Approximately fifteen employees
went to break at 7:30 p.m. and did not return to their lines to
wait for the later meal break.
The meal break began at 7:58 p.m. Thereafter, employees began to
gather in the cafeteria. A number of JBS managers, including Eric
Ray and Chris Kitch, were present in the cafeteria. These managers
stood near the doors leading to the production floor and observed.
Initially, the noise level was above average and there was no
unruly behavior.

Both Somali Muslim employees and non-Muslim employees in the
cafeteria were upset and frustrated. Absuir Hussein, a member of
the Muslim committee, spoke loudly with other Muslim employees. A
few Muslim employees stood on tables. HR managers urged them to get
down from the tables, which they did. There was shouting. The
managers attempted to calm things down.

After a large group of Muslim employees left the plant in protest,
other Muslim employees remained in the cafeteria. Some time after
8:30 p.m., JBS managers began telling employees remaining in the
cafeteria that, if they were not going back to work, they would
have to leave the cafeteria.12 The Muslim employees remaining in
the cafeteria left the cafeteria and walked toward the tunnel
leading to the parking lot.

After leaving the plant, the employees who walked out gathered in
the plant parking lot across the street.

Ron Gould called 911 twice. At 8:44 p.m., he reported that gunshots
had been fired. At 8:51 p.m., he called and reported a walkout of
east Africans and that windows were being broken.

Later, plant security called 911 and also reported that windows
were being broken. The police and sheriffs who responded to the
plant found no evidence that gunshots had been fired or that
employees had broken windows at the plant. Officer Wade Corliss,
who was present in the parking lot, testified that, while many of
the employees were upset and arguing with each other, he did not
witness any violent behavior.

JBS escorted a number of Somali Muslim employees into the plant to
retrieve their personal belongings. The Muslim employees remained
in the parking lot until approximately 11:00 p.m., when JBS
management ordered them to leave the property. The employees then
left the parking lot before the shift ended.

Mr. Schult decided to suspend the Muslim employees who had not
returned to work. JBS management told supervisors to make a list of
their workers who did not continue working after the meal break.
These lists were collected at the end of the shift by Mr. Ray. The
employee ID cards of those on the lists were disabled, preventing
those employees from entering the plant. The lists of employees,
who were later suspended, included at least two non-Muslim
employees, Norman Peterson and Diega Koronto.

In the period after the events of Ramadan 2008 until July 2011, the
great majority of Muslim employees remained on the B shift. During
this period, JBS management met with Muslim leaders and community
members to better understand the Muslim workers' concerns.15 As a
result of these meetings, JBS made some changes at the plant to
accommodate Muslim practices that are not directly relevant to the
claims at issue, such as designating and furnishing a prayer room
and installing foot baths, which Muslim employees could use in
performing their ablution. Muslim representatives also renewed
their request to be allowed to use unscheduled breaks to pray.16
In 2009, Ramadan took place from August 22 through September 19.
Ramadan took place from August 11 through September 9. JBS did not
move the meal break during Ramadan 2009 and 2010, and the evidence
did not show that any meal breaks were taken near sunset during
either Ramadan.   

However, in anticipation of Ramadan 2009, on August 10, 2009, JBS's
national HR distributed Guidelines for Unscheduled Work Breaks
(2009 Guidelines) that purported to confirm the practice already in
place in JBS's beef plants. The 2009 Guidelines stated that
employees could request restroom breaks and that supervisors were
to exercise their discretion in granting such breaks so that
employees leaving the line would not interfere with production.
Additionally, the 2009 Guidelines stated that employees could leave
the line without permission only to prevent an accident or
unreasonable discomfort. The 2009 Guidelines specifically
identified the Holy Month of Ramadan as a time during which
requests for prayer breaks outside of regularly scheduled break
periods would be granted in the order requests are received and as
operations permit.

Restroom breaks were given priority over prayer breaks. Id. The
2009 Guidelines included a series of examples of how supervisors
should handle particular situations.  

JBS distributed the 2009 Guidelines to supervisors and included
training on the 2009 Guidelines in meetings with supervisors before
Ramadan in 2009 and 2010. At least during the month of Ramadan in
2009 and 2010, the JBS supervisors generally allowed prayer breaks
in accordance with the 2009 Guidelines. Otherwise, Muslim employees
continued to be denied unscheduled breaks to pray between Ramadan
2008 and July 2011.

In July 2011, JBS issued a revised policy permitting prayer breaks
that was not limited to Ramadan (2011 Guidelines).  Although the
EEOC and the Aggrieved Employees allege the Muslim employees
continued to be denied reasonable accommodations under the revised
policy, those issues are beyond the scope of Phase I.  

Both sets of Guidelines were formulated with input from Muslim
employees and community members, and JBS worked with the Muslim
community members to implement the 2009 Guidelines. JBS managers
testified that, other than some hiccups early in the implementation
of the 2009 Guidelines, they were unaware of production or safety
problems created by the 2009 and 2011 Guidelines.

Statistical Evidence

The EEOC and JBS each presented expert testimony regarding
statistical analysis of JBS human resources' records.

The EEOC called Dr. Mark McNulty to discuss two reports he prepared
about discipline rates among JBS employees. The first report was
based on personnel actions by JBS from January 2007 to April 13,
2009. The data reflected disciplinary terminations18 and included
the name, race, and birth date of each employee. Dr. McNulty used
January 1 birth dates as a proxy for Somali national origin19 and a
list of common Muslim names as a proxy for Muslim religious
affiliation. He analyzed the data to determine whether there was a
statistically significant correlation between workplace discipline
and black race, Muslim religion, and Somali national origin. For
each category, Dr. McNulty found a statistically significant
correlation between discipline and the protected category. He also
found that employees who matched all three categories were
significantly more likely than other employees to face discipline.
After the EEOC received additional data from JBS, Dr. McNulty
prepared his second report. The additional data consisted of
information about employees who were terminated by JBS from January
2007 to October 2012.

Using the combined data, Dr. McNulty again found a statistically
significant correlation between each protected category and the
combination of the three categories and disciplinary termination.

Pattern or Practice of Discriminatory Discipline during Ramadan
2008

Prima Facie Case of a Pattern or Practice of Discrimination

The EEOC argues that the September 10, 2008 terminations were
discriminatory because black Somali Muslim employees were treated
more severely than others, while JBS claims that the evidence is
insufficient to make out a prima facie case. The Court finds that
the statistical evidence presented, in combination with the other
circumstantial evidence is sufficient for the Court to infer a
pattern or practice of discriminatory discipline on the basis of
black race and Muslim religion during Ramadan 2008. The Court,
however, finds that the EEOC has not shown a prima facie case that
there is a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of
Somali national origin. The non-statistical circumstantial evidence
of prejudice and discrimination was tied to race and religion.
While national origin undoubtably played a role in cultural
tensions at the Greeley plant in 2008, there was little, if any,
evidence linking discipline or harassment in the Greeley plant to
anything particular to Somali nationals as a protected class apart
from their black race or Muslim religion.

In particular, the Court finds that the weaker statistical
correlation between Somali national origin (using the January 1
birth date proxy) indicates that any pattern or practice of
discrimination was on account of such employees' other protected
characteristics. The statistical evidence shows less of a
correlation between Somali nationality and discipline than the
other protected characteristics. It is reasonable to inf er based
on the circumstantial evidence that, to the extent discrimination
occurred, black race and Muslim religion were the basis for any
pattern or practice of discrimination, not Somali national origin.

JBS's Nondiscriminatory Explanation

JBS argues that, even if black Muslim employees were
disproportionately terminated during Ramadan 2008, JBS has shown
that its decisions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons, principally the walkout. By contrast, the EEOC argues that
JBS's explanations are a pretext for discrimination. Pretext exists
when an employer does not honestly represent its reasons for
terminating an employee.

The EEOC argues that JBS's failure to communicate its decisions
regarding discipline, in particular its decision that anyone who
returned to work on September 9 could keep his or her job, is
evidence of pretext. There is no question that the fortuity of who
heard about the offer to go back to work on September 9 and who did
not hear caused terrible unfairness. But the EEOC has failed to
show that the motivation for JBS's poor communication was pretext
for discrimination. JBS had reason to believe that the Muslim
committee and union were in communication with the suspended
employees. The Muslim committee continued to meet with JBS after
the walkout, claiming to represent the Muslim employees who were
subject to discipline.

The Muslim committee indicated to JBS that it would pass
information to the suspended employees at Lincoln Park. Moreover,
union representatives attended these meetings. The union
represented the employees subject to discipline and was the
presumed conduit for communication between labor and management.
See Ex. A-61 ("Should you have any questions we would suggest you
contact your union representative as outlined in Article 12 of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement. The CBA called for the union to
communicate with striking employees and order them to return to
work.  

During Ramadan 2008, JBS was faced with just such a complex,
evolving situation. JBS took inconsistent actions and made some bad
decisions that ultimately disadvantaged certain Muslim employees.
Nevertheless, the Court does not draw an inference of
discrimination based on those actions because the evidence, as a
whole, does not indicate that JBS was motivated by bias as opposed
to other factors, such as JBS management's credible and legitimate
concern about work stoppages. Thus, because the EEOC has not shown
that JBS's adverse employment actions during Ramadan 2008 were
motivated by discriminatory animus, the Court will enter judgment
in favor of JBS on the EEOC's Phase I pattern-or-practice
discriminatory discipline claim.

Pattern or Practice of Retaliation for Protected Activity During
Ramadan 2008

Under Title VII it is unlawful to discriminate against an
individual because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful
employment practice by this subchapter. To demonstrate that JBS
engaged in a pattern or practice of retaliation against Somali
Muslim employees, the EEOC must show that JBS engaged in a pattern
or practice of retaliatory conduct. The EEOC meets its burden by
showing that JBS engaged in a pattern or practice of materially
adverse employment actions against employees because of such
employees' activity protected under Title VII. A plaintiff must
establish that the protected activity was a but-for cause of the
adverse action.  

Engaging in a Protected Activity

Protected activity under Title VII includes opposition to a
discriminatory practice, as well as request for, or complaint at
the denial of, a religious accommodation. Thus, requesting a
reasonable religious accommodation is protected activity under
Title VII that may support a retaliation claim.  

To succeed on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff need only have a
reasonable good faith belief that his or her activities are
protected Title VII does not require proof of the underlying claim.
In other words, even if an underlying violation of Title VII is not
found, so long as the plaintiff had at least a mistaken good faith
belief that Title VII has been violated, the retaliation claim
remains.  

The Court finds that the EEOC has shown that JBS's Muslim employees
engaged in protected activity during Ramadan 2008. Both the meeting
with Mr. Palacios on September 2, 2008 and the request to JBS's HR
staff on September 3, 2008 constituted protected activity.  

Whether Muslim Employees Suffered Materially Adverse Actions

In the context of retaliation, the phrase materially adverse refers
to an action that is likely to dissuade employees from engaging in
protected activity. Disciplinary action, suspension, discharge, and
co-worker hostility are all materially adverse actions under
Burlington Northern and its progeny.  

The Court finds that JBS took several actions against its black
Somali Muslim employees that were materially adverse in the
retaliation context, including discipline (particularly through
increased monitoring of praying during unscheduled breaks),
suspensions, and termination. Each of these actions seems likely to
dissuade such employees from requesting an accommodation or
reporting discrimination.

JBS's Non-retaliatory Explanation and Pretext

With respect to the walkout-related discipline, the Court finds
that the work stoppage presents a legitimate, non-discriminatory
justification for the work stoppage-related discipline and that the
EEOC has failed to show that such justification was a pretext for
prohibited conduct. See Elmore, 58 F.3d at 530. Rather than
retaliating against the Muslim employees for requesting an
accommodation, JBS engaged in an interactive process to determine
and implement an accommodation by moving the meal break and
entering into discussions with the Muslim committee.

Although JBS ultimately imposed a compromise unacceptable to the
Muslim committee, and one which did not constitute a reasonable
accommodation, the work stoppage in reaction to the change in meal
time provided a legitimate reason to discipline such employees and
a non-retaliatory explanation for JBS's subsequent discipline. Even
after the September 10, 2018 terminations, JBS worked with Muslim
leaders to determine appropriate accommodations, resulting in the
2009 Guidelines, showing a lack of animus in relation to requests
for accommodations. Because the Court finds that JBS disciplined
employees for engaging in a work stoppage, the Court does not
conclude that JBS sought to retaliate for the Muslim employees'
accommodation requests.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the EEOC has not shown that JBS
engaged in a pattern or practice of retaliation with respect to the
events of Ramadan 2008 and will enter judgment in favor of JBS on
the EEOC's Phase I retaliation pattern-or-practice claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 24, 2018
Findings and Conclusion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8dbxg9z from Leagle.com.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, represented by
Justin Mulaire , U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Karl
R. Tetzlaff , U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Lauren
Golden Jaeckel , U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission &
Michael Holm Imdieke , U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.

Iraq Abade & Abdirizak Ahmed, Intervenor Plaintiffs, represented by
Diane Smith King , King & Greisen, LLP, Hunter Anthony Swain , King
& Greisen, LLP 1670 York Street, Denver, CO 80206 & Todd John
McNamara , McNamara & Shechter, LLP, 1640 East 18th AvenueDenver,
CO 80218

JBS USA, LLC, doing business as JBS Swift & Company, Defendant,
represented by Brooke A. Colaizzi -- bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com --
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Heather Fox Vickles --
hvickles@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Kelly K.
Robinson -- krobinson@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard,
L.L.C., Matthew M. Morrison -- mmorrison@shermanhoward.com --
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Raymond Myles Deeny --
rdeeny@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Gets Insurance Kickback from Airfare, Claims Dolan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milita Barbara Dolan on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jetblue Airways Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-62193, (E.D. N.Y., September 13, 2018) seeks to
recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

JetBlue's online process of purchasing a flight ticket implied that
its trip insurance is passed on to another entity. Plaintiff claims
that JetBlue retains or ultimately receives an undisclosed kickback
from every policy sold. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq.
      Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
      John R. Byrne, Esq.
      Jeremy L. Kahn, Esq.
      LEÓN COSGROVE, LLP
      255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 740-1975
      Email: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com
             aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
             jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com
             jkahn@leoncosgrove.com


JOSEPH CORY: 3rd Cir. Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss Lupian
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned ALEJANDRO
LUPIAN; JUAN LUPIAN; JOSE REYES; EFFRAIN LUCATERO; ISAIAS LUNA,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. JOSEPH
CORY HOLDINGS LLC, Appellant. No. 17-2346. (3rd Cir.).

The District Court, inter alia, denied Joseph Cory's motion,
holding that the FAAAA did not preempt the Drivers' IWPCA claims.

Alejandro Lupian, Juan Lupian, Isaias Luna, Jose Reyes, and Efrain
Lucatero (the Drivers) are professional delivery drivers who
separately contracted to provide equipment and services to Joseph
Cory Holdings LLC (Joseph Cory), a motor carrier and property
broker. The Drivers filed a class action complaint alleging that
Joseph Cory deducted wages from their paychecks without obtaining
contemporaneous consent in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act (IWPCA).

The District Court denied Joseph Cory's motion to dismiss, holding
that, on its face, the IWPCA's connection to the FAAAA's subject
matter was too attenuated to trigger preemption. Lupian v. Joseph
Cory Holdings, LLC, 240 F.Supp.3d 309, 317 (D.N.J. 2017).

The purpose of the FAAAA's preemption clause is to prohibit states
from effectively re-regulating the trucking industry and to promote
maximum reliance on competitive market forces. The preemption
clause undoubtedly applies, for example, to state laws directly
restricting types of goods that can be carried by trucks, tariffs,
and barriers to entry. But state law may also be preempted if it
has an indirect effect.

This intent is patent in the FAAAA insofar as the preemption clause
employs the phrase "related to immediately before a price, route,
or service of any motor carrier." The Supreme Court further
observed that state laws whose effect' is forbidden under federal
law are those with a significant impact on carrier rates, routes,
or services.

The Court are persuaded by the decisions of two of our sister
Courts of Appeals. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
considered nearly identical facts in Costello v. BeavEx, Inc. and
concluded, on a summary judgment record, that the FAAAA did not
preempt the IWPCA. 810 F.3d 1045, 1048 (7th Cir. 2016).

As in this case, the BeavEx plaintiffs only sought remedy for
violation of the IWPCA wage deduction provision. The court
determined that, considering the limited scope of the IWPCA, its
effect is similarly limited and, rather than having a significant
impact on the prices, routes, and services that BeavEx offers to
its customers, the impact of the IWPCA is too tenuous, remote, or
peripheral to warrant FAAAA pre-emption.

BeavEx argued that, if the IWPCA were not preempted, it would
suffer increased labor costs, and that would result in higher
prices for its customers and would force it to change its business
model. In fact, BeavEx produced evidence that they would have to
spend, for instance, an additional $185,000 per year to employ a
human resources professional. The court was not persuaded,
determining that the IWPCA regulates the motor carrier as an
employer, and any indirect effect on prices is too tenuous, remote,
or peripheral.

The court held that denial of summary judgment was appropriate and
concluded that BeavEx has not demonstrated to this court that
preventing it from deducting from its couriers' wages or the
transaction costs associated with acquiring consent to do so would
have a significant impact related to its prices, routes, or
services.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Dilts v. Penske
Logistics, LLC, also considered the scope of the FAAAA's preemption
clause. 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2014). The truck drivers in that
case asserted claims under California's meal and rest break
statutes against their employer. The court began its analysis of
the employer's motion for summary judgment by recognizing that wage
and hour laws constitute areas of traditional state regulation and,
therefore, the presumption against preemption of state law applied.


Applying the standards necessary to resolve an FAAAA preemption
issue, the court noted that generally applicable background
regulations such as prevailing wage laws or safety regulations are
not preempted, even if employers must factor those provisions into
their decisions about the prices they set, the routes that they
use, or the services that they provide. Indeed, the employer
produced evidence that compliance with the meal and rest break laws
at issue would mean the employer would have to raise prices about
3.4% per year.

The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment
and held that the FAAAA preemption clause did not preempt the
California law, reasoning that the state law was not sufficiently
related to motor carrier prices, routes, or services.

Joseph Cory moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and it was
required to prove the preemption affirmative defense based on the
face of the Drivers' complaint. The Court notes that the BeavEx,
Dilts, and Schwann cases all were decided in the context of a
summary judgment record and DiFiore with a trial record. The
allegations of the complaint and arguments of Joseph Cory do not
persuade us that the District Court erred in denying the motion to
dismiss.

The Court concludes that the IWPCA does not have a significant
impact on carrier rates, routes, or services of a motor carrier and
does not frustrate the FAAAA's deregulatory objectives, as the
impact of the IWPCA is too tenuous, remote, and peripheral to fall
within the scope of the FAAAA preemption clause.

The Court will affirm the Order of the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's CourtSeptember 27, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y84dbxup from
Leagle.com.

Adam C. Smedstad, [ARGUED] Andrew J. Butcher, Scopelitis, Garvin,
Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C.

Christopher J. Eckhart , Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary,
P.C.

Peter F. Berk , Genova Burns, 494 Broad Street, Newark, NJ 07102,
Counsel for Appellant.

Harold L. Lichten , [ARGUED] Michael N. Turi, Esq. , Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C., 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000, Boston, MA
02116.

Shanon J. Carson , Camille Fundora , Alexandra K. Piazza , Sarah R.
Schalman-Bergen , Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Appellees.

Adina H. Rosenbaum , Allison M. Zieve , Public Citizen Litigation
Group, 1600 20th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20009, Counsel for
Amicus Curiae Public Citizen, Inc.


LABORATORY CORP: Haro Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALMA HARO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiff. v.
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC722757 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff as a
non-exempt, hourly-paid employee, in its California retail stores
through approximately January of 2018. The Defendants continue to
employ non-exempt, hourly-paid employees at laboratory locations
throughout California.  The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were
advised by skilled lawyers and other professionals, employees and
advisors knowledgeable about California labor and wage law,
employment and personnel practices, and about the requirements of
California law. The Defendants allegedly knew or should have known
that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive at least
minimum wages for compensation and that, in violation of the
California Labor Code, they were not receiving at least minimum
wages for work done off-the-clock.

The Defendants operate medical clinical laboratories throughout the
State of California.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          THE BAINER LAW FIRM
          1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100
          Oakland, CA  94612
          Telephone: (510) 922 1802
          Facsimile: (510) 844 7701
          E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com


LAO FENG: Burbon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lao Feng Xiang
Jewelry USA, LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lao Feng
Xiang Jewelry USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09082 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 3, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Lao Feng Xiang Jewelry USA, LLC offers jewelry repair services. The
company is based in New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


LUMINANT ENERGY: Doesn't Pay OT to Field Engineers, Baksinksi Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BAKSINSKI, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LUMINANT ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-02354-C (N.D. Tex., Sept. 5, 2018) fails to pay overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Baksinski was employed by the Defendant as construction field
engineer from August 20, 2012 to January 2, 2017.

Luminant Energy Company LLC distributes natural gas in Texas. It
also provides scheduling and nomination services. Luminant Energy
Company LLC was formerly known as TXU Portfolio Management Company,
LP and changed its name to Luminant Energy Company LLC in October
2007. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Dallas,
Texas. Luminant Energy Company LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Luminant Holding Company LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713)352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


MARIMEKKO NORTH: Faces Burbon Class Action Under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Luc Burbon filed a class action lawsuit against Marimekko North
America LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case is captioned Luc Burbon on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Marimekko North America
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09083 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 3, 2018).

Marimekko is a design house celebrated worldwide for its original
prints and colours. It is located at 58 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


MATZAL INC: Castro Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MIRANDA CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MATZAL, INC. d/b/a MATZAL
RESTAURANT and LEONEL ALBERTO ZELAYA, as an individual, the
Defendants, Case No.: CV18-5263 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2018), seeks
compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding
$100,000 as a result of the Defendants' violations of the Federal
and New York State labor laws.

According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff worked
approximately 72 or more per week during his employment by
Defendants from 2012 until to November 2017, the Defendants did not
pay Plaintiff 1.5 for hours worked over 40. The Defendants failed
also to pay Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for his
hours worked from July 2015 to October 2016, a blatant violation of
the minimum wage provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.

The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the
FLSA. The Defendants also allegedly failed to keep accurate payroll
records.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          Helen Dalton & Associates, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: 718-263-9591


McCARTHY BURGESS : Hamilton Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy, Burgess &
Wolff, Inc. The case is styled as Terry Hamilton individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McCarthy,
Burgess & Wolff, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00521 (E.D.
Tex., Oct. 2, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Mccarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. provides bankruptcy services. The
Company offers outsourcing, third party collection, reporting, and
analytic services. Mccarthy, Burgess & Wolff serves customers in
the State of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joel Spencer Halvorsen, Esq.
     Halvorsen Klote
     680 Craig Road, Suite 104
     St Louis, MO 63141
     Phone: (314) 451-1314
     Fax: (314) 787-4323
     Email: joel@hklawstl.com

MDL 2741: Griffeth, et al. vs Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CRAIG GRIFFETH, and TRINA GUNNOE,,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-01439, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Sept. 21, 2018.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-05777-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Griffeth case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that
the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in
particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          GORI, JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659 9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659 9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER DELLAFERA PLC
          3420 Pump Rd., PMB 404
          Henrico, VA 23233
          Telephone: (800) 401 6670
          Facsimile: (888) 830 1488
          E-mail: pmiller@millerdellafera.com


MED FOODS: Cochran Appeals Ruling in Koller Suit to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Wanda Cochran filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Scott Koller, et al. v. Med Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02400-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Scott Koller, et al. v. Med
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-16812, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendant
Deoleo USA, Inc., formerly known as Med Foods, Inc., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is
styled as Scott Koller v. Deoleo USA, Inc., Case No. 17-80188.

The Plaintiff brought the action seeking to establish on behalf of
purchasers of Bertolli and Carapelli brand olive oil that certain
of those oils are misleadingly labeled.  Specifically, Scott Koller
first alleges that several products marketed as "extra virgin"
olive oil do not warrant that designation because they do not meet
the applicable quality standards when bottled and/or degrade too
quickly as the result of defendants' packaging, handling, and
storage practices.  Second, the Plaintiff contends that both "extra
virgin" and non-extra virgin olive oil products are deceptively
marketed as "imported from Italy," when in fact the olives used to
make the oil come from any of a number of other countries.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 18, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on November 19, 2018;

   -- Appellant Wanda Cochran's opening brief is due on
      December 27, 2018;

   -- Appellees Deoleo USA, Inc., Scott Koller and Med Foods,
      Inc.'s answering brief is due on January 28, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Objector-Appellant Wanda Cochran, of Streetsboro, Ohio, appears pro
se.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee SCOTT KOLLER, an individual, on behalf of
himself, the general public and those similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Adam Joshua Gutride, Esq.
          Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 271-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com
                  Kristen@gutridesafier.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 615-3948
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees MED FOODS, INC., and DEOLEO USA, INC., are
represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Margulies, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
          555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 892-9200
          E-mail: jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com

Defendant-Appellee MED FOODS, INC., is represented by:

          Stephanie Anne Stroup, Esq.
          FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
          2601 Main Street, Suite 340
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 862-4585


MIAN RAUF: Hopkins Suit Brought Before N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hopkins, Jermain, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rauf, Mian,
Defendant, Case No. 7443/2018 was brought before the New York
Supreme Court,  Queens County, on October 3, 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce Bekritsky, Esq.
     1551 Kellum PL.
     Mineola, NY 11501
     Phone: (516) 742-8055



MICROCHIP TECH: Maknissian Hits Stock Drop from Microsemi Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shant Maknissian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Microchip Technology Inc.,
Stephen Sanghi, James Eric Bjornholt and Ganesh Moorthy, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-02924, (D. Ariz., September 17, 2018) seeks to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Microchip is a provider of microcontroller, mixed signal, analog
and flash-IP solutions, providing low-risk product development,
lower total system cost and faster time to market for diverse
customer applications worldwide.

On May 29, 2018, Microchip announced that it had completed the
acquisition of Microsemi Corp. for $68.78 in cash per share of
Microsemi common stock. Microsemi designs and manufactures
semiconductors.  On August 9, 2018, Microchip issued a press
release that its financial performance for the quarter ended June
30, 2018 had been adversely impacted by $226.9 million of the
Microsemi purchase. On this news, the Company’s share price fell
$10.67 per share, more than 10%, to close at $87.41 per share on
August 10, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff owns Microchip stock and lost upon corrective
disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard G. Himelrick, Esq.
      TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
      Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II
      2525 East Camelback Road
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Email: rgh@tblaw.com

             - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

             - and -

      Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
      KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 371-6600
      Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
      Email: telrod@kmllp.com


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeals Ruling in Brown Suit to 5th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Mid-America Apartment Communities, Incorporated and
Mid-America Apartments, L.P., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Nathanial Brown v. Mid-America Apartment
Communities, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1:17-CV-307, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin.

The appellate case is captioned as Nathanial Brown v. Mid-America
Apartment Communities, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 18-90039, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent NATHANIAL BROWN, for himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Britton D. Monts, Esq.
          THE MONTS FIRM
          401 Congress Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701-0000
          Telephone: (512) 474-6092
          E-mail: bmonts@themontsfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard Eugene Norman, Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN, L.L.P.
          3 Riverway
          Houston, TX 77056-3034
          Telephone: (713) 651-1771
          E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com

               - and -

          Jason W. Snell, Esq.
          THE SNELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1615 West Sixth Steet
          Austin, TX 78703
          Telephone: (512) 477-5291
          E-mail: jsnell@snellfirm.com

Defendants-Petitioners MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES,
INCORPORATED, as general partner of Mid-America Apartments, LP, and
MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS, L.P., as successor in merger to Post
Apartment Homes, LP doing business as Post Worthington doing
business as Post South Lamar doing business as Post Eastside doing
business as Post Park Mesa doing business as Post Gallery doing
business as Post West Austin doing business as Post Sierra at
Frisco Bridges doing business as Post Katy Trail doing business as
Post Abbey doing business as Post Addison Circle doing business as
Post Cole's Corner doing business as Post Barton Creek doing
business as Post Heights doing business as Post Legacy doing
business as Post Meridian doing business as Post Midtown Square
doing business as Post Square doing business as Post Uptown Village
doing business as Post Vineyard doing business as Post Vintage
doing business as Post Washington, are represented by:

          Barry Goheen, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, L.L.P.
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4618
          E-mail: bgoheen@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Kathy Lynn Poppitt, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, L.L.P.
          500 W. 2nd Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 457-2004
          E-mail: kpoppitt@kslaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Stimpson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho issued a
Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
in the case captioned BARRY STIMPSON, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC., a Kansas corporation, and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendant. Case No. 1:17-cv-00431-BLW.
(D. Idaho)

Plaintiff Barry Stimpson filed this putative class action suit on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He alleges that
defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by
sending deceptive or misleading letters seeking repayment of
time-barred debts.

The Governing Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate where a party can show that, as to
any claim or defense, there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.

Stimpson alleges a single claim under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA). The FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from
asserting any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or
using any unfair or unconscionable means to collect, or attempt to
collect, a debt. Sections 1692e, 1692f. Section 1692e provides a
nonexclusive list of prohibited practices, such as falsely
representing the character or legal status of a debt or threatening
to take legal action that cannot be taken.

Midland Did Not Mislead Stimpson By Failing to Include a Revival
Warning

To prevail on his claim, Stimpson must demonstrate that: (1) he is
a consumer; (2) defendant is a debt collector; (3) the defendant's
challenged practice involves an attempt to collect a debt; and (4)
the defendant has violated a provision of the FDCPA in attempting
to collect the debt.

Stimpson's credit card agreement, however, is governed by Nevada
law not Idaho law. The credit card agreement states:

This Agreement and your Account will be governed by federal law
and, to the extent state law is applicable, the laws of the state
of Nevada, whether or not you live in Nevada and whether or not
your Account is used outside Nevada. This Agreement is entered into
in Nevada, your Account is maintained in Nevada, and all credit
under this Agreement will be extended from Nevada.

Under Nevada law, a partial payment on a time-barred debt does not
revive the statute of limitations.

Because there was no risk of revival, the Court concludes, as a
matter of law, that Midland's dunning letter did not violate the
FDCPA by dint of failing to include a more specific warning that a
partial payment might reset the limitations clock.

In opposing defendants' motion for summary judgment, Stimpson has
not come forward with evidence that HSBC either received the credit
card agreement in Idaho or solicited or advertised in Idaho.
Likewise, Stimpson has not presented evidence that he entered into
the credit card agreement while physically present in the State of
Idaho or, for that matter, that he was an Idaho resident at the
time he entered into the credit card agreement. He has thus failed
to challenge the facts asserted by defendants in the manner
required by Rule 56. More to the point, he has failed to come
forward with evidence that would displace the choice-of-law
provision contained in the credit card agreement he indisputably
entered into. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Nevada law
governs the parties' agreement.

Midland Did Not Mislead Stimpson by Telling Him He Could Save
Money

First, Stimpson argues that Midland made false statements by
offering up three specific payment options and informing Stimpson
that he could save $458.24 if he elected to pay a lump sum within
30 days. Stimpson focuses on the word save, and says this is
necessarily a misrepresentation because he had no obligation to
repay his debt, and, therefore, paying any amount over zero could
not be a savings.

But Stimpson's debt did not evaporate when the statute of
limitations ran. He made purchases with his credit card and he
didn't pay the bill when it came due. His credit card debt is thus
a valid, outstanding obligation and it will remain so until he pays
it, regardless of whether his creditor can successfully sue him.
Accordingly, Midland may continue to appeal to Stimpson to pay his
debt, and, therefore, it stands to reason that Midland may send a
letter offering to accept less than the full amount Stimpson owes
resulting in a savings for Stimpson.  

The Court is not persuaded that Midland's offer or, more
specifically, its use of the word savings in making the offer would
mislead or confuse the least sophisticated consumer.

Midland's Statute-of-Limitations Disclaimer Is Not Confusing or
Misleading

Both parties point to the disclaimer language in their effort to
convince the Court that the letter either is, or is not,
misleading. Midland says it complied with the CFPB consent decree
and, therefore, its letter cannot be deemed misleading or deceptive
under the FDCPA. Stimpson, on the other hand, says the disclaimer
is confusing because it says only that Midland will not sue when it
should have said Midland cannot sue.

As already noted, there is no revival risk here, and, to the extent
these courts concluded that the dunning letters were misleading
solely because they failed to include a more explicit
statute-of-limitations disclosure, the Court is not persuaded. Read
from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, Midland's
letter does not falsely state or indirectly suggest that it has the
ability to sue on the time-barred debt.

Rather, the letter expressly informs Stimpson that (1) the law
limits how long a person can be sued on a debt, and (2) due to the
age of his debt, Midland would not sue him. Contrary to Stimpson's
assertions, the Court is not convinced that the least sophisticated
consumer would interpret this language as a veiled message, telling
him that the debt is not time barred, or that litigation may be
forthcoming, if Midland so chooses.   The Court will therefore
grant summary judgment in defendants' favor.

Midland Is Not Collaterally Estopped From Arguing It Has Complied
with the FDCPA

The Court is not persuaded that Midland is collaterally estopped
from contending that its letter does not violate the FDCPA

Here, applying offensive collateral estoppel would not be
appropriate. None of the cases Stimpson cites are binding on this
Court and none deal with the choice-of-law issue unique to this
case. Additionally, the Smothers decision Stimpson cites came from
the same court that issued Boedicker, a plainly contradictory
ruling. Boedicker, 227 F. Supp. 3d at 1241-42, granting summary
judgment in favor of Midland Credit because the letter was not a
settlement offer and the relevant administrative agencies approved
communications that matched Midland's letter.

Defendants are not collaterally estopped from litigating this issue
against Stimpson because his claim can be distinguished because of
the unique choice of law issue in this case. Additionally, the
plainly contradictory rulings over the revival disclosure suggest
that the application of offensive collateral estoppel would be
unfair in this case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Memorandum Decision and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7v94bch from Leagle.com.

Barry Stimpson, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Adam Ballard,
Ballard Law, PLLC & Scott C. Borison, pro hac vice.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a Kansas corporation & Midland
Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants,
represented by Joshua C. Dickinson , pro hac vice & Lyle J. Fuller,
Fuller and Fuller, PLLC.


MIKIMOTO: Violates ADA, Burbon Suit Says
----------------------------------------
Mikimoto (America) Co., Ltd. is facing a class action lawsuit under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The case is styled as Luc
Burbon on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Mikimoto (America) Co., Ltd., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09084 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 3, 2018).

Mikimoto (America) Co. Ltd. produces pearls and pearl jewelry. It
cultures semi-spherical pearls. The company's products comprise
akoya cultured, south sea cultured, black south sea cultured,
freshwater cultured, and conch pearls. Mikimoto (America) offers
its products through pearl stores. The company was founded in 1893
and is based in New York, New York. It operates stores in New York,
New York; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Costa Mesa and Beverly Hills,
California. Mikimoto (America) Co. Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of
K. Mikimoto & Co., Ltd.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Court Denies Settlement Approval in Old GM Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order concluding that the
Signatory Plaintiffs' and the GUC Trust Must Satisfy Rule 23 for
the Proposed Settlement Approval in the case captioned In re:
MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, f/k/a GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et
al., Chapter 11, Debtors. Case No. 09-50026 (MG) (Jointly
Administered).(S.D.N.Y.).

The parties have also raised the issue of whether a ruling in this
Court that a Rule 23 certification of economic loss plaintiff
classes is required would implicate overlapping issues between this
Court and the MDL currently before Judge Furman in the District
Court.

This matter involves the continuing saga ensuing from General
Motors Corporation's (Old GM) failure to disclose serious vehicle
safety defects in more than 11 million cars that it manufactured
before Old GM's bankruptcy on June 1, 2009. Old GM knew about the
defects but did not disclose them to car buyers, regulators or the
public, and most relevant to the bankruptcy case, Old GM did not
disclose to the owners of defective vehicles that they had to file
claims against Old GM for personal injuries, wrongful death,
property damage and economic losses caused or contributed to by the
defects before the bankruptcy claims bar.

The parties reengaged and negotiated the Proposed Settlement
Agreement, the key terms of the Proposed Settlement are as follows,
inter alia:

(a) GUC Trust. The GUC Trust will: i. fund up to $6,000,000 in
notice costs following the entry of a Notice Order; ii. irrevocably
pay $15,000,000 into the Settlement Fund when the Settlement Order
becomes final.

The Rule 23 Gating Issue

The Rule 23 Gating Issue is whether Rule 23 must be applied to the
Proposed Settlement. The parties initially entered into the
Proposed Settlement. Thereafter, the GUC Trust filed a motion
seeking approval of their proposed Notice Procedures. The GUC Trust
filed a motion seeking approval of their settlement agreement,
Settlement Motion, and a motion seeking estimation of the
Plaintiffs' Claims. The Court entered an order raising questions
regarding the Settlement Agreement with respect to the impact on
the PIWD Plaintiffs' jury trial rights in light of the Proposed
Settlement.1

LEGAL STANDARDS

Claims and Allowance

The basic requirements creditors must meet to benefit from
bankruptcy's collective distribution process are generally
uncontroversial, but here these requirements bear acutely on the
parties' dispute.  A creditor is defined by section 101(10) of the
Bankruptcy Code to mean anyone with a provable claim against the
debtor's estate. To participate in a distribution from the debtor's
estate, a creditor must generally file a proof of claim a written
statement setting forth the creditor's claim.

Section 105 and Bankruptcy Rule 9014 Do Not Permit the Claimants to
Bypass Bankruptcy Rule 7023

Section 105 and Bankruptcy Rule 9019 also do not permit authorizing
actions forbidden by the Bankruptcy Code and Rules. As explained
elsewhere in this Opinion, section 502 states that a claim or
interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 of this title,
is deemed allowed.

And, an unsecured creditor must file a proof of claim for the claim
to be allowed. In the absence of a certified class, unfiled claims
cannot be allowed. Approval of the Proposed Settlement utilizing
section 105 without class certification would contravene the
express provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules, such as
section 502(a), section 501, Rule 3002(a), and Rule 3003(c)(2).

Class Claims Under Rule 23

Rule 23

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative
parties on behalf of all members only if: the class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable (2) there are
questions of law or fact common to the class (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Class Claims in Bankruptcy

Class actions may be filed in the context of a bankruptcy case
through the application of Bankruptcy Rule 7023, which provides,
Rule 23 F. R. Civ. P. applies in adversary proceedings.
Accordingly, class adversary proceedings may be commenced in a
bankruptcy case provided that the requirements of the various
subdivisions of Rule 23 are satisfied.

The Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules provide numerous
safeguards and simplified procedures for debtors and creditors that
do not and cannot apply here, nine years after this bankruptcy case
was filed and seven years after the Chapter 11 Plan was confirmed.
For example, section 1141(d)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides
that confirmation of the plan discharges the debtor from any debt
that arose before the date of confirmation, whether or not a proof
of claim of such debt is filed. The application of that section
depends on creditors receiving notice of the case and the bar date,
however, which Claimants did not receive here. The simplified
procedures for filing proofs of claim, and deeming them allowed if
no objection is made, make perfectly good sense when applied in the
usual case, making use of Rule 23 unnecessary, but not under the
circumstances here. New GM would no doubt prefer that each economic
loss claimant be required to file a separate proof of claim,
assuming the bar date was extended to permit them to do so, but
such an approach for over 11 million potential economic loss
claimants would be unwieldy and unnecessary, guaranteeing years of
continued litigation. In the absence of section 1141(d)(1)(A), the
Bankruptcy Code doesn't provide any other authority to bind all
potential claimants who have not filed proofs of claim.

Rule 23 supplies express authority to bind class members to any
proposed settlement or compromise if the court approves the
settlement after a hearing and the court finds that the settlement
is fair, reasonable and adequate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). As
explained above, section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code does not permit
the bankruptcy court to bypass the procedural requirements of Rule
23 to obtain the binding effect that the GUC Trust seeks.

The Court will not approve the Proposed Settlement unless the Court
certifies an economic loss plaintiff class (or classes) under Rule
23, for several reasons.

First, the Proposed Settlement seeks to settle, estimate and allow
unfiled potential claims of millions of nonsignatories. But under
applicable law and New GM's contracts, the Court cannot settle,
estimate and allow unfiled hypothetical economic loss claims. Thus,
the Court must first certify a class or classes of economic loss
plaintiffs, and then estimate and allow class proofs of claim.

Second, based on a review of the case law, courts do not estimate
unfiled claims where the claimants can be specifically identified,
and their injuries are known and extant. Courts have estimated
either filed unliquidated, disputed or contingent claims, or future
unknown claims (specifically, in asbestos or other mass tort cases
where damages or injury has not yet manifested) to protect those
whose rights to recover for future injuries otherwise would be
unprotected.24 Neither situation is present here.

In this case, a group of individuals have sought leave to file late
claims on behalf of over 11 million economic loss Claimants, the
entire class of plaintiffs' injuries is known, and their ability to
file claims for existing injuries is present. Therefore, cases in
which courts estimated unfiled claims are inapplicable. The cases
the Movants cite are distinguishable on several additional bases.

Lastly, a claim is only deemed filed and allowed as a class claim
after the Court certifies the class. Without class certification, a
class claim purportedly filed on behalf of the absent claimants
only asserts claims on behalf the named claimants in their
individual capacities. A settlement under Rule 9019 does not
obviate the need for the Court to apply Rule 23 requirements to a
purported class claim, regardless of whether notice is provided to
potential claimants.

The Settlement Agreement as drafted cannot be approved unless the
economic loss Claimants can certify one or more classes under Rule
7023. Therefore, the three motions filed by the GUC Trust the
Settlement Motion, the Notice Motion, and the Estimation Motion are
denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Bankruptcy Court's September 24, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yd8gs7t6 from Leagle.com.

Motors Liquidation Company, Debtor, represented by Donald F. Baty,
Jr. --
dbaty@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, LLP, David
R. Berz -- david.bers@retured.weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Judy B. Calton -- jcalton@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller
Schwartz & Cohn, LLP, Stephen Karotkin -- stephen.korotkin@weil.com
-- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Deborah Kovsky --
kovskyd@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, Robert J. Lemons --
Robert.lemos@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Harvey R.
Miller , Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Daniel R. Murray --
dmurray@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, LLP, Joseph R. Sgroi --
jsgroi@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP,
Tricia A. Sherick  -- tsherick@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller
Schwartz and Cohn, LLP, Joseph H. Smolinsky -- smolinsky@weil.com
-- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Patrick J. Trostle  --
Patrick.Trostle@tklaw.com -- Thompson & Knight LLP & Robert B.
Weiss -- rweiss@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn,
LLP.

Terry Moore, Petitioning Creditor, represented by Alexander McHenry
Memmen, The Memmen Law Firm, LLC.

Ignition Switch Pre-Closing Accident Plaintiffs Represented by
Hilliard Martinez Gonzales L.L.P. Listed on Exhibit B Hereto,
Plaintiff, represented by William P. Weintraub --
wweintraub@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP.

Wilmington Trust Company, Trustee, represented by Jonathan D.
Fortney -- jfortney@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Alejandro A. Herrera -- aherrera@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Mitchell A. Karlan -- mkarlan@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Lisa H. Rubin -- lrubin@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Aric Wu -- awu@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Plumbers Sues over 6.25% Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 60 PENSION TRUST, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
NIELSEN HOLDINGS PLC, DWIGHT MITCHELL BARNS, JAMERE JACKSON,
STEPHEN HASKER AND KELLY ABCARIAN, the Defendants, Case No.:
1:18-cv-06459 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2018), alleges that Nielsen and
certain of its officers and/or directors violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Nielsen common stock
between February 11, 2016 and July 25, 2018, inclusive. Nielsen
provides its customers with analytical data to assist in their
comprehensive understanding of what products consumers buy and what
programming consumers watch. Nielsen divides its business into two
segments: (1) Buy; and (2) Watch. The Company's Buy segment tracks
millions of retail transactions around the world and transforms
this data into various products that assist consumer packaged goods
companies in their marketing decisions.

Beginning in February 2015, Nielsen changed its Buy segment
presentation to account for the following geographical split: (1)
developed markets, such as Europe and the United States; or (2)
emerging markets, such as China and Brazil. The Company's Watch
segment tracks user data from television, radio, and the internet
for customers in the advertising and media sectors. Nielsen relies
on data obtained from third-parties such as Facebook and Twitter
for many of its products and services.

During the Class Period, Nielsen repeatedly assured investors that
its measurement and analytics services provided to customers were
continuously viable and strong. However, Defendants' Class Period
statements pertaining to Nielsen's current business and financial
condition were materially false and misleading because Defendants
failed to disclose that: (1) Buy segment sales were experiencing a
permanent decline due to major budget cuts instituted by the
Company's CPG customers; (2) the Company's CPG clients were
reducing and cancelling Nielsen custom project work in favor of
real-time analytical solutions; (3) the Company recklessly
disregarded its readiness for and the true risks of privacy related
regulations and policies, including the General Data Protection
Regulation, on its current and future financial and growth
prospects; (4) the Company's financial performance was far more
dependent on Facebook and other third-party large data set
providers than previously disclosed and privacy policy changes
affected the scope and terms of access Nielsen would have to
third-party data; (5) access to Facebook and other third-party
provider data was becoming increasingly restricted for Nielsen and
its clients; and (6) as a result, the Company’s positive
statements about its business, operations, and financial conditions
lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 25, 2017, Nielsen issued a press release announcing
results for its third quarter ended September 30, 2017. Once again,
Nielsen reported revenue growth and margin expansion despite a
challenging environment, reporting that "revenues increased 11.2%,
or 10.8% on a constant currency basis, as global footprint,
coverage expansion, and broad product offerings continue to
position [the Company] well with both local and multinational
clients in these markets." However, despite continued pressure from
the developed markets, the Company downplayed the extent of the
problem within its Buy segment, remaining optimistic about the
prospects of its emerging markets. On this news, Nielsen's stock
price fell $2.57 per share, or 6.25%, to close at $38.56 per share
on October 25, 2017.

On February 8, 2018, the Company issued a press release announcing
results for its fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2017.
Despite hitting its sales target, the Company reported
disappointing earnings for the quarter, at a meager $0.23 per
share, with projected income well below the mark. The Company
attributed the slowdown to pressure from developed markets,
particularly U.S. clients who "persist in seeking efficiencies in
their own businesses," with "revenues within the Buy segment for
the fourth quarter of 2017 decreased 2.3% to $848 million, or 5.3%
on a constant currency basis, compared to the fourth quarter of
2016." On this news, Nielsen's stock price fell $3.66 per share, or
9.74 percent, to close at $33.90 per share on February 8, 2018.

The full extent of Company's struggling business and financial
condition was disclosed on July 26, 2018, when Nielsen announced
results for its second quarter ended June 30, 2018. Specifically,
the Company announced downward revisions to EBITDA margin growth, a
$0.56 reduction of projected net income, and a $250 million
reduction in free cash flow guidance, which was sharply below the
guidance issued in April 2018. Nielsen attributed these
disappointing results and projections to the negative impact that
the GDPR and other privacy regulations had on its business. The
Company also blamed continued Buy segment underperformance.
Moreover, Nielsen announced that it had opened an in-depth
strategic review of its Buy segment and that its Chief Executive
Officer would retire at the end of 2018. On this news, the
Company's stock price fell $7.46 per share, or more than 25%, to
close on July 26, 2018 at $22.11 per share, on heavy volume
trading.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Nielsen is a global information, data and measurement company with
headquarters in New York City, USA. Nielsen operates in over 100
countries and employs approximately 44,000 people worldwide. Total
revenues were $6.2 billion in 2015.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 60 Pension
Trust:

          Michael D. Smith, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. SMITH, P.C
          53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1663
          Chicago, IL  60604
          Telephone: (312) 546 6138
          Facsimile: (888) 664 8172
          E-mail: msmith@smithlawchicago.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818 0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com


NURSING CARE: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------
KIANYA SMITH, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. NURSING CARE SERVICES,
INC., the Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-04075-MAK (E.D. Pa., Sept. 21,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, damages and
other relief relating to the Defendant's violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968
and/or Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiff brought these claims as a putative collective action,
individually, and on behalf of and all current or former healthcare
workers employed by the Defendant from three years before the
filing of this Complaint to the present.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required Plaintiff to
regularly work more than 40 hours in certain workweeks. For
example, during the workweek of August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff
worked 46.5 hours. She was paid straight time for all hours worked.
No overtime premium was paid for the 6.5 hours of overtime worked
during said workweek. Again, the Plaintiff worked 61.5 hours during
the workweek of August 15, 2016 and was not paid overtime wages.

The Defendant provides home care services in Florida.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925 5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231 7000
          E-mail: info@bohrerbrady.com

               - and -

          Kevin Lovitz, Esq.
          LOVITZ LAW FIRM
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, 36th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-1996
          Facsimile: (215) 735 1515
          E-mail: kevin@lovitzlaw.com



NYC MEDICAL: Lawrence Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEYLEE LAWRENCE, COURTNEY BRACCIA, BRIA WARNER, and WENDY ROSADO
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NYC
MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C. d/b/a Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery
and SERGEY VOSKIN, M.D., Case No. 7:18-cv-08649 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 21, 2018), seeks to recover all alleged unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and costs, including reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

NYC Medical Practice, P.C., doing business as Goals Aesthetics and
Plastic Surgery, is a domestic professional corporation created and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New York.
Sergey Voskin, M.D., is a physician duly licensed to practice
medicine in the state of New York.  Voskin was an officer and the
sole shareholder of the Company.

GOALS by its agents, servants and employees, is in the business of
performing cosmetic plastic surgery, body contouring, anti-aging
techniques, facial rejuvenation procedures and other aesthetics
needs.  GOALS maintains offices in Brooklyn and in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
          Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
          BLAU, LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
          23 Green Street, Suite 303
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 458-1010
          E-mail: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
                  sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com


OLLIE PETS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ollie Pets Inc. The
case is captioned Linda Slade individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Ollie Pets Inc. doing business as: myollie.com., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-09009 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 2, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Ollie Pet Inc. engages in preparing and delivering dog food. It
offers fresh meals and various recipes. Ollie Pet Inc. was
incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


OPKO HEALTH: Adsport Hits Share Price Drop in Pump-and-Dump Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adsport, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OPKO Health, Inc. and Phillip Frost,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08456 (S.D. N.Y., September 17, 2018),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

OPKO, a healthcare company, engages in the diagnostics and
pharmaceuticals business in the United States and internationally.
Phillip Frost has been its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
since March 2007.

The complaint says the Defendants failed to disclose that Frost and
OPKO were involved in orchestrating the acquisition of large
quantities of stock at steep discounts and after securing a
substantial ownership interest in them, engaged in illegal
promotional activity and manipulative trading to artificially boost
its stock price and to give the stock the appearance of active
trading volume and eventually dump their shares into the inflated
market, reaping millions of dollars at the expense of unsuspecting
investors.

On this news, shares of OPKO fell $1.01 or over 18%, before NASDAQ
halted the trading of OPKO on September 7, 2018 at $4.58. To date,
trading in OPKO remains halted, making the stock illiquid and
virtually worthless.

Adsport purchased Opko publicly traded common stock and lost
substantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
     Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP
     850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 687-1980
     Fax: (212) 687-7714
     Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
            jcampisi@kaplanfox.com


OSAKA STEAKHOUSE: Zhang Suit Goes to Southern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jian Zhang and En Rong Zhang on behalf of themselves and all other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs Osaka Steakhouse &
Sushi, Inc. d/b/a SHU Chinese Restaurant, Chun Chen, "Jane" (first
name unknown) Chen, "John" (first name unknown) Chen no. 1 and
"John" (first name unknown) Chen No. 2., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-CV-0577, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. the Southern District of New York
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-08659-JGK to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John G. Koeltl.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          Rui Ma, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue-Suite 10g
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353 6288
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
                  rma@hanglaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Ricardo Rafael Morel, Esq.
          39-15 Main Street Suite 318
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (424) 362 8960
          Facsimile: (718) 939 8881
          E-mail: esquire1998@gmail.com


PENHALIGON’S INC: Burbon Suit Asserts ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penhaligon's Inc. The
case is styled as Luc Burbon on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Penhaligon's Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-09086 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 3, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Penhaligon's Inc. provides fragrances, perfumes, and bath and body
products for ladies and men. The company also offers soaps, bath
oils, hand washes and lotions, hand and body creams, bath and
shower gels, deodorants, and talcum powders; shaving products and
accessories; and candles, and bath and body gifts. It offers its
products online, as well as through its stores in the United
Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1870 and is based in London, United
Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


PINDUODUO INC: Hung Sues over 10% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
YOEN HUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PINDUODUO INC.; ZHENG HUANG; and TIAN XU,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2018) is an action
on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Pinduoduo
securities between July 26, 2018 and July 31, 2018, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on July 26, 2018, Pinduoduo completed
its IPO, offering 85.6 million American depositary shares ("ADSs")
priced at $19.00 per share and raising $1.63 billion.

In the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with Pinduoduo's IPO, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Pinduoduo's
controls were ineffective to prevent third-party vendors from
selling counterfeit goods on the Company's online platform; (ii)
consequently, Pinduoduo's revenues and the number of active
merchants using its platform were traceable in part due to unlawful
conduct and thus unsustainable; and (iii) as a result, Pinduoduo's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On July 31, 2018 and August 1, 2018, media outlets reported that
China's State Administration for Market Regulation was
investigating Pinduoduo after reports of third-party vendors
selling counterfeit goods on the Company's group-discounting
website. On this news, the price of Pinduoduo ADSs fell $2.28, or
10.09%, to close at $20.31 on August 1, 2018.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Pinduoduo Inc. operates an e-commerce platform in the People's
Republic of China. It also operates Pinduoduo, a mobile platform
that offers a range of priced merchandise. The company was formerly
known as Walnut Street Group Holding Limited and changed its name
to Pinduoduo Inc. in July 2018. Pinduoduo Inc. was founded in 2015
and is based in Shanghai, the People's Republic of China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ira M. Press, Esq.
          Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue, Floor 16
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com
                  telrod@kmllp.com


PRO-LAB INC: Standish Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
LYLE STANDISH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRO-LAB, INC., the Defendant, Case
2:18-at-01503 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 21, 2018), seeks injunctive relief
and statutory damages arising out of and relating to the conduct of
the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting
the Plaintiff and class members on their telephones using an
Automatic Telephone Dialing System without their prior express
written consent within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant called Mr. Standish's
cellular telephone at least once using an automatic telephone
dialing system, including a call on July 19, 2018 from telephone
number (954) 384-4446. The Defendant placed these calls with a
predictive dialer with the capacity to store and dial a list of
telephone numbers without human intervention. The Plaintiff did not
give Defendant prior express written consent to make these calls.
Plaintiff asked Defendant to stop calling him, but Defendant
persisted in harassing Plaintiff with repeated unlawful calls.

PRO-LAB sells home safety test kits.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com


PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Whalen Moves for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Whalen moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled THOMAS WHALEN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT
SERVICES, LLC and CAPITAL ONE N.A., Case No. 2:18-cv-01488-LA (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant him (and the Defendants) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


PROTECT AMERICA: Mey Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
DIANA MEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities similarly situated v. PROTECT AMERICA, INC., WAHAB GLOBAL
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and MAHTAB AFGAN, Case No. 5:18-cv-00161-FPS
(N.D.W. Va., September 21, 2018), is brought to enforce the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the face of rampant illegal
telemarketing in the home-security industry.

Ms. Mey tells the Court that PAI retained Wahab Global to obtain
new customers for PAI using telemarketing.  She asserts that Wahab
Global -- acting on behalf of PAI and as its agent -- placed an
illegal telemarketing call to her cellular telephone number, which
has been on the National Do Not Call Registry for many years,
without her express consent, in violation of the TCPA.

Protect America, Inc., is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business located in Austin, Texas.  PAI describes itself
as a leading provider of wireless home security in North America.

Wahab Global Communications, LLC, is an Ohio limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in Criterion
Way in Dublin, Ohio.  Mahtab Afgan owns and operates Wahab
Global.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          Sharon F. Iskra, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                  siskra@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


PURPLE INNOVATION: Slade Class Action Asserts ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purple Innovation,
LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Purple Innovation, LLC, Purple Innovation, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-09010 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 2, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Purple Innovation, LLC operates as a technology company. The
Company designs and manufactures cushions, pillows, and other
comfort products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



QUATTRO DIRECT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Eastman et al. Allege
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASON EASTMAN; ADAM MCCARTHY; and ZACHARY ROSENBERG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
QUATTRO DIRECT, LLC; and RESOURCE MARKETING CORP, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-11900 (D. Mass., Sept. 5, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making making unsolicited, prerecorded
calls and sending unsolicited, autodialed text messages to
consumers without their consent, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Quattro Direct, LLC operates as a multichannel marketing and
advertising agency. It offers direct marketing, strategic marketing
consultation, creative, print production management, online
marketing, digital solutions, broadcast and video, lists and data,
media, print advertising, results analysis, and program management
services. The company was founded in 2004 and is based in Berwyn,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Campbell Esq.
          250 First Avenue, Unit 602
          Charlestown, MA 02129
          Telephone: (617) 872-8652
          E-mail: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN , P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


RES-CARE PREMIERE: Jones Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSEY JONES, On behalf of herself and a class of all others
similarly situated v. RES-CARE PREMIERE, INC. d/b/a ResCare d/b/a
Community Alternatives of Missouri d/b/a Raiment, Inc., Case No.
2:18-cv-04195-NKL (W.D. Mo., September 21, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid wages, including overtime, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

ResCare is a corporation doing business throughout the state of
Missouri and the United States, with its corporate headquarters
located in the state of Kentucky.  ResCare operates multiple
residential care facilities in Cole County, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew A. Clement, Esq.
          Kari A. Schulte, Esq.
          Shelly A. Kintzel, Esq.
          COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR, P.C.
          231 Madison
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Telephone: (573) 635-7977
          Facsimile: (573) 635-7414
          E-mail: mclement@cvdl.net
                  kschulte@cvdl.net
                  skintzel@cvdl.net


ROCKIES REGION: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Dufresne Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rockies Region 2006 Limited Partnership said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has not yet
decided the motion to dismiss filed by PDC Energy, Inc. in the case
entitled Dufresne, et al. v. PDC Energy, et al.

In December 2017, PDC Energy, Inc. (PDC) received an action
entitled Dufresne, et al. v. PDC Energy, et al., filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
original complaint was brought by a number of limited partner
investors seeking to assert derivative claims on behalf of this
Partnership against PDC and alleging claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and breach of contract.

The plaintiffs also included claims against two of PDC's senior
officers for alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit accuses
PDC, as the managing general partner of this Partnership, of, among
other things, failing to maximize the productivity of this
Partnership's crude oil and natural gas wells.

PDC filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on February 1, 2018, on
the grounds that the complaint is deficient, including because the
plaintiffs failed to allege that PDC refused a demand to take
action on their claims. On March 14, 2018, the motion was denied as
moot by the court because the plaintiffs requested leave to amend
their complaint.

In late April 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
complaint. Such amendment alleged additional facts to support the
plaintiffs' claims and purports to add direct class action claims
in addition to the original derivative claims. The amendment also
added three new individual defendants, all of which are currently
independent members of PDC's Board of Directors.

PDC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and, in
response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July
10, 2018. On July 31, 2018, PDC filed a motion to dismiss this
second amended complaint and the claims against the individuals
named as defendants.

On August 21, 2018, a Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
Second Amended Complaint was filed by Plaintiffs.  Defendants filed
on September 4 their Reply.

Rockies Region said, "This motion has not yet been decided by the
court. Potential damages as a result of this lawsuit, if any, would
be paid by PDC and should not affect this Partnership."

Rockies Region 2006 Limited Partnership engages in the development,
production, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas
liquids in the United States. It owns an undivided working interest
in 43.9 net productive crude oil and natural gas wells located in
the Wattenberg Field within the Denver-Julesburg Basin, northeast
of Denver, Colorado. PDC Energy, Inc. operates as the managing
general partner of the company. Rockies Region 2006 Limited
Partnership was founded in 2006 and is based in Denver, Colorado.


S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT: Can Compel Arbitration in Hughes FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, granted
the Defendants' motions to compel arbitration in the cases, NICOLE
HUGHES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT, LTD., et al.,
Defendants. ELANA PERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT
LTD., Defendant, Case Nos. 16-cv-03371-LB, 17-cv-00138-LB (N.D.
Cal.).

The two actions are labor disputes brought as putative collective
actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and putative
class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  The named
Plaintiffs, who bring claims on behalf of themselves and other
putative class members, are or were exotic dancers who are suing
the companies that managed the nightclubs where they worked.

The parties have filed a number of motions.  First, the Defendants
move to compel the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims, citing
arbitration provisions in the performer contracts they signed with
the Plaintiffs.  Second, they move to dismiss or stay these actions
on the ground that they are subsumed in another earlier-filed FLSA
collective action and Rule 23 class action, Roe v. SFBSC
Management, LLC, also brought by former exotic dancers that worked
at the same nightclubs at issue here (as well as other nightclubs).
The parties in that case reached a court-approved settlement
agreement that would release the defendants of many of the claims
at issue in these actions; the settlement is currently on appeal to
the Ninth Circuit.  Third, the Plaintiffs move for conditional
certification under the FLSA and move to have notice of these
actions issued to all other similarly situated dancers.

The issue of arbitration is a threshold issue.  The Court
previously addressed the arbitration issue late last year.  At that
time, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants all agreed that the
parties' contractual arbitration provisions were unenforceable
under a then-prevailing Ninth Circuit decision, Morris v. Ernst &
Young LLP, and the Court therefore did not compel the Plaintiffs to
arbitrate their claims.  The Supreme Court since reversed Morris.

The Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provisions are
unenforceable because (1) the Defendants have waived arbitration,
and (2) the arbitration provisions are procedurally and
substantively unconscionable.  Magistrate Judge Beeler disagrees.
She finds that (i) the Defendants have not waived their right to
arbitration; (ii) the Defendants' motions to dismiss and opposition
to the Plaintiffs' conditional-certification motions made only
procedural arguments and did not address the merits of the
Plaintiffs' claims; (iii) the fact that the Defendants reached a
settlement in Court, not in arbitration, in the related Roe action
does not effect a waiver of arbitration in the cases.  The
unilateral waiver is less unconscionable than the one there, as the
waiver is only unilateral with respect to the class or the
representative actions, as opposed to with respect to all judicial
relief, and the PAGA issue is the same as the one there.  The Judge
holds that the waivers do not bar the enforcement of the parties'
arbitration provisions.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Beeler granted the Defendants'
motions to compel arbitration.  Named Plaintiffs Hughes, Angelynn
Hermes, Penny Nunez, Elana Pera, and Sarah Murphy, and opt-in
Plaintiff Dora Marchand, must submit all claims other than PAGA
claims to binding arbitration.  She stayed each of the Plaintiff's
PAGA claims (if any) while that her arbitration is pending.

The Plaintiffs said that they may try to amend their complaint in
the Hughes case to add a new named Plaintiff who did not sign an
arbitration agreement with the Defendants.  The Magistrate extended
the Plaintiffs 21 days from the date of the Order to file a motion
to amend their complaint in the Hughes case to add a new named
Plaintiff or Plaintiffs.  The Defendants may oppose any such
motion.

Until the threshold issue of arbitration (including any related
amendments to the pleadings) is fully resolved, the Magistrate
defers ruling on (1) the Defendants' motions to dismiss based on
the earlier Roe action and (2) the Plaintiffs' motions for
condition certification and for notice to be issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 29, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6TM4Z3 from Leagle.com.

Nicole Hughes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Angelynn Hermes & Penny Nunez, Plaintiffs, represented by
Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C.

S.A.W. Entertainment, LTD, doing business as Larry Flynt's Hustler
Club, Defendant, represented by  April Pineda Santos --
asantos@longlevit.com -- Long & Levit LLP, Douglas J. Melton --
dmelton@longlevit.com -- Long & Levit LLP & Shane Michael Cahill
--
scahill@longlevit.com --  Long & Levit, LLP.

Gold Club-SF, LLC, doing business as Gold Club San Francisco,
Defendant, represented by Douglas J. Melton, Long & Levit LLP &
Shane Michael Cahill, Long & Levit, LLP.

Jane Roe 1, Jane Roe 2 & Jane Roe 3, Interested Partys, represented
by Steven Gregory Tidrick -- sgt@tidricklaw.com --  The Tidrick Law
Firm.


SAMARITAN DAYTOP: Underpays Housing Specialists, Hewitt Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
LATISHA HEWITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAMARITAN DAYTOP VILLAGE, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-05020 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2018) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Hewitt was employed by the Defendant as housing specialist from
March 9, 2015 to May 29, 2018.

Samaritan Daytop Village provides vocational and educational
assessment, career counseling, and job placement assistance and
referrals to literacy and skills training to ensure clients become
gainfully employed and self-sufficient when they leave our programs
and return to the community. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          William Brown, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


SEARS HOLDINGS: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in Catalfamo ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Robert A. Catalfamo and Lavarita D. Meriwether filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Robert
Catalfamo, et al. v. Sears Holdings Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-05230, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the duties they
owed to the Sears Holdings Savings Plan, to the Plaintiff, and to
the putative class members, who are also Plan participants and
beneficiaries by, inter alia, retaining Sears common stock, which
traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker "SHLD," as
an investment option in the Plan when a reasonable fiduciary using
the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence . . . that a prudent man
acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use"
would have done otherwise.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Catalfamo, et al. v.
Sears Holdings Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-3040, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by October 5, 2018;

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before October 31, 2018, for
      Robert A. Catalfamo and Lavarita D. Meriwether;

   -- Appellants shall file, on or before October 9, 2018, a
      brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be
      dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and

   -- Briefing shall be suspended pending further Court
      order.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBERT A. CATALFAMO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and LAVARITA D. MERIWETHER
are represented by:

          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          Six E. 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017-0000
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com

Defendants-Appellees SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, EDWARD S. LAMPERT,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Sears Holdings
Corporation, SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,
SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and MICHAEL
O'MALLEY are represented by:

          Christopher J. Boran, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          77 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-5094
          Telephone: (312) 324-1146
          E-mail: cboran@morganlewis.com


SELLAS LIFE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Abstral Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that Galena
Biopharma, Inc. awaits court's decision on its motion to dismiss in
the putative shareholder class action suit related to Galena's
promotional practices for Abstral(R).

On February 13, 2017, putative shareholder securities class action
complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among other
things, that the Company and certain of the Company's former
officers and directors failed to disclose that Galena's promotional
practices for Abstral(R) (fentanyl sublingual tablets) were
allegedly improper and that Galena may be subject to civil and
criminal liability, and that these alleged failures rendered
Galena's statements about its business misleading.

The actions were consolidated, a lead plaintiff was named by the
Court and an amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint and the briefing was
completed in April of 2018. The Court has taken the matter under
advisement.

SELLAS Life said, "It is not known when the Court will issue a
ruling in this matter."

SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel
cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications.  SELLAS Life
Sciences Group, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York.


SELLAS LIFE: Paid Galena Stockholders' Suit-Related Obligations
---------------------------------------------------------------
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018, that all obligations related to the
Order and Final Judgment in the case entitled, In re Galena
Biopharma, Inc., C. A. No. 2017-0423-JTL, have been satisfied in
full by the company.

In April  2017, a putative stockholder class action was filed in
Delaware state court seeking relief under Section 225 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") and alleging breaches of
fiduciary duties by Galena's former board of directors and former
interim chief executive officer regarding the proposals to amend
Galena's certificate of incorporation to increase the amount of
authorized shares of common stock and effectuate a reverse stock
split at the July 2016 and October 2016 stockholder meetings,
respectively.

On June 2, 2017, an amended verified complaint was filed along with
a motion to expedite the proceedings. On June 5, 2017, Galena filed
a verified petition under Section 205 of the DGCL and a motion to
expedite the proceedings. On June 8, 2017, the Court denied a
request by the plaintiff to schedule a preliminary injunction
motion and ordered a prompt trial on both the plaintiff and
Galena's claims. On June 20, 2017, the Court consolidated the
claims into In re Galena Biopharma, Inc., C. A. No. 2017-0423-JTL.


On July 10, 2017, the Court ordered that the trial of the claims be
held on August 28, 30 and 31, 2017. On July 24, 2017, Galena
entered into a binding settlement term sheet, involving payment of
$50,000 in cash and $1,250,000 in unrestricted shares of the
company's common stock. The Court enforced the settlement term
sheet on November 30, 2017, over the objection of the plaintiff. On
December 8, 2017, the Court set the hearing on the settlement for
March 15, 2018.

On December 11, 2017, the Court also granted an order validating
the ratification votes at the special stockholder meeting held on
July 6, 2017 and the certificate of amendments filed by Galena for
the increase in authorized shares in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2016 as
well as for the reverse stock split in 2016. On February 22, 2018,
the plaintiff filed his brief in support of the settlement as well
as his request for attorneys' fees and an incentive award. On
February 28, 2018, the former directors and former interim chief
executive officer requested the Court continue the date of the
hearing to approve the settlement as the Company was working with
the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to obtain
the no-action letter required by the binding settlement term sheet.


On March 15, 2018, the Court ruled in favor of the continuance and
continued the settlement hearing for 90 days. On June 14, 2018, the
Court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement
and awarding attorneys' fees to the plaintiff. All obligations
related to the Order and Final Judgment were satisfied in full by
the Company in June 2018.

SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel
cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications. SELLAS Life
Sciences Group, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York.


SOUTH CAROLINA: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Mental Health Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs AW, WL, RC, MJ, CM, HH and Protection and Advocacy for
People with Disabilities, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in their lawsuit titled AW, et al. v. John MaGill, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-01346-RMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina at Charleston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on May 24, 2017, and assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard
M. Gergel.

The SC Mental Health Commission is the governing body of the SC
Department of Mental Health and has jurisdiction over the state's
public mental health system.  Its seven members are appointed for
five-year terms by the governor with advice and consent of the
Senate.

The appellate case is captioned as AW, et al. v. John MaGill, et
al., Case No. 18-345, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners AW, WL, RC, MJ, CM, HH, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and PROTECTION AND
ADVOCACY FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, INC., a South Carolina
non-profit corporation, are represented by:

          Sean Houseal, Esq.
          Kathryn Susan Mansfield, Esq.
          Dana Woodrum Lang, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
          P. O. Box 999
          Charleston, SC 29402-0000
          Telephone: (843) 722-3400
          E-mail: sean.houseal@wbd-us.com
                  kathryn.mansfield@wbd-us.com
                  dana.lang@wbd-us.com

               - and -

          Maura Martin Klugman, Esq.
          BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
          1101 15th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 467-5730
          E-mail: maurak@bazelon.org

               - and -

          Mark J. Murphy, Esq.
          MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, PC
          1920 L Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 467-5730
          E-mail: mmurphy@mooneygreen.com

               - and -

          Thornwell Simons, Esq.
          Sarah Garland St. Onge, Esq.
          SOUTH CAROLINA PROTECTION & ADVOCACY
          FOR THE HANDICAPPED, INC.
          3710 Landmark Drive
          Columbia, SC 29204-0000
          Telephone: (803) 782-0639
          E-mail: simons@pandasc.org
                  stonge@pandasc.org

Defendants-Respondents JOHN H. MAGILL, in his official capacity as
the Director of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health, THE
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH and THE SOUTH CAROLINA
MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION are represented by:

          William Henry Davidson, II, Esq.
          Joel Steve Hughes, Esq.
          DAVIDSON, WREN & PLYLER, PA
          1611 Devonshire Drive
          P. O. Box 8568
          Columbia, SC 29202-8568
          Telephone: (803) 806-8222
          E-mail: wdavidson@dml-law.com

               - and -

          Andrew Lindemann, Esq.
          LINDEMANN, DAVIS & HUGHES, PA
          P. O. Box 6923
          Columbia, SC 29260
          Telephone: (803) 881-8921
          E-mail: Andrew@LDH-Law.com


STEADFAST CONSTRUCTION: Estudillo Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUFINO PAVIA ESTUDILLO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs STEADFAST CONSTRUCTION LLC
(D/B/A STEADFAST CONSTRUCTION LLC), FOSTER DEVELOPMENT LLC (D/B/A
FOSTER DEVELOPMENT LLC), MORI WOLKOFF, GREGORY WOLKOFF, and PAUL
LOFFRENO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05339, (E.D.N.Y. Sept.
21 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation under Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either
at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff  to all other
similarly situated employees.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations.

The Defendants operate a construction company located in Rosebank
section of Staten Island in New York City.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


STERN & STERN: Goodman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stern & Stern, P.C.
The case is styled as Peter Goodman individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stern & Stern, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-05521 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 2, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Stern & Stern, P.C. is a debt collection law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Sanders Law, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


TAIYO INTERNATIONAL: Jin Sues Over Filing of Fraudulent Tax Forms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH JIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. TAIYO INTERNATIONAL INC. d/b/a YAMATO JAPANESE STEAKHOUSE &
SUSHI BAR, INC. and KIL D. HAN, an individual, Case No.
8:18-cv-02342-JSM-SPF (M.D. Fla., September 21, 2018), seeks relief
on behalf of the Plaintiff and his fellow workers for the
Defendants' alleged willful filing of fraudulent tax information
forms with regard to their employment.

Instead of listing the workers' complete earnings on Forms W-2 as
required by law, the Defendants improperly classified a portion of
its workers' earnings as cash 'under the table' payments, not
reported to the Internal Revenue Service, as part of a scheme to
avoid tax liability under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act,
the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, as well as its worker's
compensation obligations, the Plaintiff alleges.  He adds that the
Defendants also failed to pay minimum and overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Taiyo International Inc., doing business as Yamato Japanese
Steakhouse & Sushi Bar, Inc., is a Florida profit corporation and.
The Company operates multiple restaurants in Florida.  Kil D. Han
is the president, director, and registered agent of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Saba, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com


TEUSCHER PROMENADE: Faces Burbon ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Luc Burbon on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Teuscher Promenade LLC doing
business as: Teuscher Chocolates, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09085
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 3, 2018) was filed pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Founded by Dolf Teuscher, Teuscher Promenade LLC, doing business as
Teuscher Chocolates, has been producing swiss chocolates for over
80 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


UNITED COLLECTION: Stern Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Rochel Stern on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
United Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05550
(E.D. N.Y., Oct. 3, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

United Collection Bureau, Inc. provides debt collection services
for companies (government, healthcare, utility, financial service,
communication, and student markets) and individuals in the United
States. United Collection Bureau, Inc. was formerly known as UCB,
Inc. and changed its name to United Collection Bureau, Inc. in
August 1979. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Toledo, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Maxim Maximov, Esq.
     Maxim Maximov, LLP
     1701 Avenue P
     Brooklyn, NY 11229
     Phone: (718) 395-3459
     Fax: (718) 408-9570
     Email: m@maximovlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Ct. Vacates Lift of Prelim Injunction in Hamama Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order vacating
the stipulation and order lifting the preliminary injunction in the
case captioned USAMA J. HAMAMA, et al., Petitioners, v. REBECCA
ADDUCCI, et al., Respondents. Case No. 17-cv-11910. (E.D. Mich.).

Subsequent to the preliminary injunction issued, an issue arose
with respect to determining whether a class member's decision to
return to Iraq was knowing and voluntary. The Court adopted
Petitioners' proposed forms regarding procedures to determine
whether a putative class member's decision to return to Iraq was
knowing and voluntary, which protocol included speaking with an
attorney.

The Court entered a stipulated order lifting the preliminary
injunction as to Ibrahim after receiving a signed waiver from
Ibrahim stating that he wished to be promptly removed to Iraq.

Mansy filed a motion to vacate the stipulated order lifting the
preliminary injunction for Ibrahim. Mansy asserts that Ibrahim's
waiver could not have been made knowingly and voluntarily in light
of Ibrahim's history of mental illness.

Respondents argue that Mansy lacks standing to intervene in this
case because he has not shown that Ibrahim is unable to litigate
this case due to mental incapacity.

Petitioners argue that Mansy's standing matter is beside the point,
because Petitioners have standing and have filed parallel motions
to Mansy's motions. Petitioners' argument is sound. Because
Ibrahim's competency must be resolved in order to address the
motions of Petitioners who have standing because Ibrahim is a
member of the class action the Court can resolve Mansy's standing
at the same time it resolves the matter of Ibrahim's competency.

Competency

There is no clear standard to determine whether Ibrahim made a
knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights under the Court's July
24, 2017 preliminary injunction.

In Rees, 384 U.S. at 312, the petitioner had been sentenced to
death based on state court convictions. After his habeas corpus
petition was denied by the district court and the Fourth Circuit,
the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme
Court. However, nearly a month after filing his petition with the
Supreme Court, the petitioner directed his counsel to withdraw the
petition. The petitioner's counsel could not in good conscience
withdraw the petition because he had concerns about his client's
competency. The petitioner's counsel had him examined by a mental
health professional, who concluded that he was mentally
incompetent. The respondent sought to examine the petitioner, but
was unable to obtain his cooperation.

Nonetheless, the respondent's psychiatrists expressed doubts that
the petitioner was mentally incompetent. The Supreme Court sent the
matter to the district court to determine whether the petitioner
has capacity to appreciate his position and make a rational choice
with respect to continuing or abandoning further litigation or on
the other hand whether he is suffering from a mental disease,
disorder, or defect which may substantially affect his capacity in
the premises.

July 19, 2018 Evidentiary Hearing

The Petitioners argue that Ibrahim lacked the capacity to knowingly
and voluntarily waive the protections of the stay of removal in
this case. They note that it is undisputed that Ibrahim has
schizophrenia and a generalized anxiety disorder. Petitioners'
expert, Dr. Pinals, concluded that Ibrahim exhibited paranoia,
irritability, grandiose thinking, and cognitive inflexibility,
which are all characteristic features of schizophrenia.  

The Respondents argue that the Court should not withdraw the
stipulated order as to Ibrahim because he has always had the
capacity to make a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights under
the preliminary injunction. Additionally, the Respondents argue
that because Ibrahim has always had the capacity to waive his
rights under the injunction, his subsequent change of mind should
not outweigh the resources that Respondents have expended.  

Dr. Pinals testified that part of his literal-minded thinking was
to take extreme views of whether something would be relatively easy
or not easy.  It was more of a black and white way of thinking. Dr.
Pinals explained, for example, that Ibrahim believed that if he
ended up in Iraq, he would face no challenges whatsoever, including
failing to appreciate the potential danger of being a target of
extremism from being a Christian. Petitioners argue that Ibrahim's
simplistic and inflexible decision-making are caused by his mental
illness. They note that when Dr. Cardasis was posed with the
question of whether he attributed Ibrahim's simplistic thinking and
unsophisticated approach to decision-making to personality traits
rather than mental illness, he declined to take a position.  

Based on this, the Court agrees with Petitioners that Ibrahim did
not have the capacity to appreciate his position and make a
rational choice with respect to waiving his rights under the
preliminary injunction. Ibrahim, facing an indefinite period of
incarceration, signed the waiver without any consideration of the
long-term consequences of his decision. In Dr. Pinals' words,
Ibrahim overvalued the benefits of making his decision, but
undervalued the risks associated with it. Ibrahim's impaired
ability to rationally manipulate the information led him to make a
decision to be repatriated to Iraq where he is almost certainly
incapable of tending to his own needs, let alone surviving the
persecution he would likely face. The Court finds that Ibrahim is
suffering from a mental illness, which substantially affected his
capacity to understand his position and make a rational choice with
respect to waiving his rights under the preliminary injunction,
especially in light of the dire consequences of such action.

Accordingly, the Court vacates its November 20, 2017 order lifting
the preliminary injunction for Wisam Ibrahim.

Mansy's motion to vacate the stipulated order lifting the
preliminary injunction for Wisam Ibrahim  is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Memorandum Decision and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybh7ne3g from Leagle.com.

Usama J. Hamama, Petitioner, represented by Bonsitu A. Kitaba,
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Kary L. Moss --
kmoss@aclumich.org -- American Civil Liberties Union Fund of
Michigan, Kimberly L. Scott -- scott@millercanfield.com -- Miller,
Canfield, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union, Michael J.
Steinberg -- msteinberg@aclumich.org -- American Civil Liberties
Union Fund of Michigan, Miriam J. Aukerman --
maukerman@aclumich.org -- American Civil Liberties Union of
Michigan, Nadine Yousif, Code Legal Aid, Inc., Nora Youkhana --
norayoukhana@gmail.com -- Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Harrington,
Susan E. Reed -- susanree@michiganimmigrant.org -- Michigan
Immigrant Rights Center/Michigan Poverty Law Progr, Wendolyn W.
Richards -- richards@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield, Margo
Schlanger -- margo.schlanger@gmail.com -- Maria Martinez Sanchez --
msanchez@aclu-nm.org -- American Civil Liberties Union of New
Mexico & William W. Swor.

Rebecca Adducci, Respondent, represented by August E. Flentje, U.S.
Department of Justice Special Counsel, Civil Division, Cara E.
Alsterberg , United States Department of Justice Civil Division,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Christina Parascandola , United
State Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation,
Jennifer L. Newby , U.S. Attorney Defensive Litigation,Michael
Celone , United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration
Litigation, Nicole N. Murley , Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Division, Sarah S. Wilson , U.S.
Attorney's Office & William C. Silvis , United States Department of
Justice Civil Division.

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III & Elaine C. Duke, Respondents,
represented by Cara E. Alsterberg , United States Department of
Justice Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Christina
Parascandola , United State Department of Justice Office of
Immigration Litigation, Michael Celone , United States Department
of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Nicole N. Murley ,
Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice - Civil
Division, Sarah S. Wilson , U.S. Attorney's Office & William C.
Silvis , United States Department of Justice Civil Division.


UNITED STATES: JP's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John A. Kronstadt has taken under submission the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion for
preliminary injunction in the lawsuit styled Ms. J.P., et al. v.
Jefferson B. Sessions, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK (C.D.
Cal.).

According to the Court's civil minutes, motion hearing is held.
Counsel address the issues raised by the Court with respect to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (the "Class Motion") and
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the "Injunction
Motion").  The Court takes the Class Motion and Injunction Motion
under submission and a ruling will be issued.

The Defendants shall lodge on the docket the pink "Inmate Health
Message Slip" that was published to the Court during the hearing.

The scheduling conference is not held.  The Court defers setting
dates until after the issuance of the final ruling on the submitted
motions.  Moreover, counsel believe they will be in a better
position to discuss settlement at that time.

The Court defers ruling on the Defendants' Unopposed Ex Parte
Application, which seeks to advance the hearing date for the motion
to dismiss.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin M. Fee, Esq.
          Logan P. Brown, Esq.
          Bridget S. Johnsen, Esq.
          Amy P. Lally, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 595-9500
          E-mail: kfee@sidley.com
                  lbrown@sidley.com
                  bjohnsen@sidley.com
                  alally@sidley.com

               - and -

          Mark E. Haddad, Esq.
          USC GOULD SCHOOL OF LAW
          UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          699 Exposition Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
          Telephone: (213) 740-7331
          E-mail: markhadd@usc.edu

               - and -

          Mark D. Rosenbaum, Esq.
          PUBLIC COUNSEL
          610 South Ardmore Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90005
          Telephone: (213) 385-2977
          Facsimile: (213) 385-9089
          E-mail: mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael C. Heyse, Esq.
          Michelle R. Slack, Esq.
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 616-4900
          E-mail: michael.heyse@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: Sued over Separation of Asylum Seekers' Families
---------------------------------------------------------------
K.O. and E.O., Jr., by and through their parents and next friends,
E.O. and L.J.; and C.J, by and through his father and next friend
F.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, Attorney General
of the United States; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of the United
States Department of Homeland Security (DHS); JOHN F. KELLY, White
House Chief of Staff; STEPHEN MILLER, Senior Advisor to the
President; GENE HAMILTON, Counselor to the Attorney General
Sessions; THOMAS HOMAN, former Director of United States
Immigration and Customers Enforcement (ICE); RONALD D. VITIELLO,
Acting Director of ICE; L. FRANCIS CISSNA, Director of United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); KEVIN K.
MCALEENAN, Commissioner of United States Customs and Border
Protection (CBP); ALEX AZAR, Secretary of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); SCOTT LLOYD,
Director of the United States Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR);
JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS; JOHN DOE CBP AGENTS; and JOHN DOE ORR
PERSONNEL, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-40149-TSH (D. Mass., Sept.
5, 2018) is an action against the Defendants' wrongful conduct in
separating the parents of the minor Plaintiffs and the class,
causing and inflicting emotional distress to the Plaintiffs and the
class.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated the
fundamental right to family integrity protected by the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by
forcibly taking young children from their parents with no legal
justification and without a hearing and later coercing parents into
waiving their children's rights to pursue asylum, withholding of
removal, and other statutory claims available to migrant children
and their families.

The Defendants have also violated the Due Process Clause by
subjecting children to punitive conditions while they were being
held in civil immigration detention and failing to provide them
adequate and necessary mental health treatment. In addition,
Defendants have violated the Equal Protection guarantee of the
Fifth Amendment by discriminating against immigrant children,
particularly those from Central and South American countries, on
the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.

United States Department of Homeland Security is a governmental
agency that works to prevent terrorist attacks within the United
States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize
the damage from terrorist attacks. The Department also assists
immigrants learn English, embrace the American civic culture, and
become fully American. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Howard M. Cooper, Esq.
          Joseph M. Cacace, Esq.
          TODD & WELD LLP
          One Federal Street, 27 th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 720-2626
          E-mail: hcooper@toddweld.com
                  jcacace@toddweld.com

               - and -

          Susan B. Church, Esq.
          Derege Demissie, Esq.
          Heather Yountz, Esq.
          Brittanie Allen, Esq.
          DEMISSIE & CHURCH
          929 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 01
          Cambridge, MA 02139
          Telephone: (617) 319-2399
          E-mail: sbc@demissiechurch.com
                  dd@demissiechurch.com

               - and -

          Jeff Goldman, Esq.
          Jesse M. Bless, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFF GOLDMAN LLP
          125 Washington Street, Ste. 204
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (781) 704-3897
          E-mail: Jeff@@jeffgoldmanimmigration.com

               - and -

          David A. Vicinanzo, Esq.
          Nathan P. Warecki, Esq.
          Lauren Maynard, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          100 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 345-1000
          E-mail: dvicinanzo@nixonpeabody.com
                  nwarecki@nixonpeabody.com
                  lmaynard@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Esq.
          Oren N. Nimni, Esq.
          LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
          CIVIL RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
          61 Batterymarch Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 988-0624
          E-mail: iespinoza@lawyerscom.org
                  onimni@lawyerscom.org


VOX MEDIA: Misclassifies Content Contributors, Tamryn Spruill Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMRYN SPRUILL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs VOX MEDIA, INC., a Delaware corporation
(d.b.a. SB NATION); and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. RG18921742 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 21, 2018), alleges that
the Defendants failed to:

     -- pay minimum wages,
     -- pay overtime wages,
     -- provide meal periods,
     -- provide rest periods, and
     -- furnish accurate wage statements,

under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Vox uniformly and consistently
misclassified Content Contributors -- including job titles such as
Site Manager, Associate Editor, Managing Editor, Deputy Editor, and
Contributor -- as independent contractors to avoid its duties and
obligations owed to employees under California law and to gain an
unfair competitive advantage over its competitors that properly
classify its workers as employees.

Vox controls and directs the performance of Content Contributors in
writing and editing content for its blogs, both under contracts it
enters with some Content Contributors (but not all) and in fact.
Content Contributors create the written, video, and audio content
that makes up SB Nation's team site network and generates
advertising revenue. Their work is central to SB Nation's business.
Content Contributors do not create and edit content for their own
independent businesses, but create content solely for SB Nation
team sites, the lawsuit says.

Vox Media, Inc. is an American digital media based in Washington,
D.C. and New York City. The company founded in July 2005 as
SportsBlogs Inc. by Jerome Armstrong, Tyler Bleszinski, and Markos
Moulitsas, and was refounded as Vox Media in 2011 by Joshua
Topolsky.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

          David Borgen, Esq.
          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          Ginger L. Grimes, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835 1417
          E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                  lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  ggrimes@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          Marc L. Gelman, Esq.
          Maureen W. Marra, Esq.
          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
          E-mail: mmarra@jslex.com
                  jgoodley@jslex.com
                  rmccarthy@jslex.com

               - and -

          JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 922 6700
          Facsimile: (215) 922 3524

WEST IRIS: Denied Breaks and Overtime Pay, Clark Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Arinn Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. West Iris Transport, Inc. and Federal
Express Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00168 (E.D. Ky.,
September 17, 2018), seeks redress for denied meal and rest
periods, unpaid wages, including unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
wrongfully withheld wages, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains,
punitive and liquidated damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
including restitution and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under Kentucky law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

West Iris was contracted by FedEx to provide delivery services and
drivers for their logistics business. Clark was employed by the
Defendants as a non-exempt employee delivery driver in
Independence, Kentucky from approximately March of 2018 to May of
2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter B. Schneider, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     3700 Buffalo Speedway
     Houston, TX 77098
     Phone: (713) 338-2560
     Email: pschneider@schneiderwallace.com

            - and -

     William M. Hogg, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 3000
     Houston, TX 77098
     Telephone: (713) 338-2560
     Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
     Email: whogg@schneiderwallace.com

            - and -

     Michael P. Abate, Esq.
     KAPLAN JOHNSON ABATE & BIRD LLP
     710 West Main Street, Fourth Floor
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Telephone: (502) 416-1630
     Facsimile: (502) 540-8282
     Email: mabate@kaplanjohnson.com


WYNDHAM REWARDS: Williams Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WYNDHAM REWARDS, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-05783 (N.D. Cal., Sep. 21, 2018), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related
regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around June 2018, the
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -8176, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's services. When Plaintiff would answer
Defendant's calls, the Plaintiff would be prompted by a
pre-recorded message to press "1" for more information. The
Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined
by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or
attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone  numbers (805)
239-7626, (805) 238-9684, (805) 235-9835, (805) 233-1460. (805) 27
235-8837, and (805) 722-4121. The Defendant's calls constituted
calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1)(A).

The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior 3 express consent"
to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. section 5 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -8176 was added to the National
Do-Not-Call Registry on or about September 14, 2005. The Defendant
placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone ending in -8176 in or around June 2018. Such
calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section
64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or sell Defendant's
services. The Plaintiff received numerous solicitation calls from
Defendant within a 12-month period.The Plaintiff requested for
Defendant to stop calling Plaintiff both through the "opt-out"
feature suggested in one of the initial phone calls and also by
speaking directly to one of Defendant's employees during one of the
initial calls from Defendant, thus revoking any prior express
consent that had existed and  terminating any established business
relationship that had existed, as defined under 19 16 C.F.R.
310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). Despite this, the Defendant continued to call
Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of
the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com


ZOGSPORTS: Ernst et al., Seek Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
KEITH ERNST, ARTHUR OGANESYAN, and ALAN NAH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
ZOGSPORTS, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No.: BC722761 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants provided Volunteer
Employees with instructions and exercised on how to perform their
duties and even imposed penalties for not appearing or being tardy
for work. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and the Volunteer
Employees for any of their time worked in violation of various
sections of the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants operate an adult, co-ed recreational sports
league.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Danny Yadidsion, Esq.
          LABOR LAW PC
          100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700
          Santa Monica, CA  90401
          Telephone: (310) 494 6082
          Facsimile: (877) 775 2267
          E-mail: Danny@LaborLawPC.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***